Legal Document

406 U.S. 356 92 Supreme Court Reporter 1620 32 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 152 Frank JOHNSON, Appellant,v.LOUISIANA. Number 69—5035. Argued March 1, 1971. Reargued Jan. 10, 1972. Decided May 22, Syllabus A warrantless arrest for robbery was made of appellant at his home on the basis identification from photographs, and he committed by a magistrate. Thereafter appeared in lineup, which represented counsel, identified victim another robbery. He tried latter offense before 12-man jury convicted nine-to-three verdict, as authorized Louisiana law cases where crime is necessarily punishable hard labor. Other state provisions require unanimity five-man trials offenses punishment may be labor capital cases. The affirmed conviction, rejecting appellant's challenge to jury-trial violative due process equal protection claim that lineup forbidden fruit an invasion Fourth Amendment rights. Appellant conceded under Duncan versus Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 20 491, decided after trial began has no retroactive effect, Sixth does not apply case. Held: 1. requiring less-than-unanimous verdicts criminal do violate Due Process Clause failure satisfy reasonable-doubt standard. Pp. 358—363. (a) mere fact three jurors vote acquit mean nine who convict have ignored their instructions concerning proof beyond reasonable doubt or they honestly believe guilt been thus proved. 360—362. (b) Want alone establish doubt. 362—363. 2. legal scheme providing unanimous but otherwise, varies difficulty proving guilty with gravity offense, designed serve rational purposes 'facilitat(ing), expedit(ing), reduc(ing) expense administration justice,' constitute invidious classification protection. 363—365. 3. Since evidence constituting illegal used trial, validity issue conducted, 'exploitation' arrest, authority commitment magistrate, purged procedure any 'primary taint.' Pacific KF135 P2 365. 255 La. 314, 230 So.2d 825, affirmed. Richard Atlantic Buckley, New Orleans, La., appellant. Louise S. Korns, appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 Under both Constitution Code Criminal Procedure, are 12, sufficient return either verdict.1 principal question this case whether these allowing certain valid Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. 2 * Johnson arrested January 20, 1968. There warrant, armed had photographs having crime. then still involved pleaded guilty, 14, 1968, virdict. His challenges constitutional statutory were rejected courts, 825 (1970), appealed here. We noted probable jurisdiction. 400 900, 91 144, 27 137 (1970). Conceding 491 (1968), applicable case, see DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 2093, 1308 presses claims, together also affirm. II 3 argues order give substance standard, State, virtue Amendment, must cases, In re Winship, 397 358, 363—364, 90 1068, 1072—1073, 25 368 clause construed unanimous-jury verdict all so contending, Concededly, told only if conviced Nor there that, unanimous, would insufficient support it. focuses instead less than voted because acquit, standard satisfied conviction therefore infirm. 4 note outset never held requisite law. Indeed, more once expressly said '(i)n denied . dispenses necessity twelve, verdict.' Jordan Massachusetts, 225 167, 176, 651, 652, 56 L.Ed. 1038 (1912) (dictum). Accord, Maxwell Dow, 176 581, 602, 605, 448, 456, 458, 44 597 (1900) These statements, moreover, co-existed indicating implicit constitutions recognizing 'the fundamental principles deemed essential life liberty.' Davis States, 160 469, 488, 16 353, 40 499 (1895). See Leland Oregon, 343 790, 802 803, 72 1002, 1009—1010, 96 1302 (1952) (dissenting opinion); Brinegar 338 160, 174, 69 1302, 1310, 93 1879 (1949); Coffin 156 432, 450—460, 15 394, 402—404, 39 481 (1895).2 5 Entirely apart however, it our view dissenting votes raises about integrity accuracy majority guilt. Appellant's contrary argument breaks down into two parts, each we shall consider separately: first, individual will unable conscientiously favor when colleagues arguing acquittal, second, cannot proved one jury's members conclusion deliberation possess such Neither persuasive. 6 Numerous defined "based reason arises lack evidence." Johnson, Federal Reporter, 2nd 5, n. (CA2 1965). e.g., Bishop 71 App.D.C. 132, 138, 107 297, 303 (1939); Schneiderman, 106 F.Supp. 906, 927 (S.D.Cal.1952); Haupt, 47 836, 840 (N.D.Ill.1942), rev'd other grounds, 136 661 (CA7 1943). supra, recognized evidentiary "impress(ing) trier reaching subjective certitude facts issue." U.S., 364, S.Ct., 1072 (citation omitted). considering first branch argument, can find holding failed follow need reflect honest belief Appellant, asks us assume minority express sincere doubts guilt, fellow nevertheless ignore them even exhausted grounds acquittal which, pursued, might persuade acquit. But itself demonstrate attended further evidence, developed believing jurors, aware responsibility power over liberty defendant, simply refuse listen arguments presented terminate discussion, render verdict. On far likely juror presenting reasoned answered carry enough him prevent conviction. cease discussion outvote ceased persuasive effect purpose—when minority, is, continues insist upon without reasons its position. At juncture denigrating large refusing accept decision being, least minds, point, 'dissenting should (when made) impression minds many men, equally honest, intelligent himself.' Allen 164 492, 501, 17 154, 157, 41 528 (1896). offers otherwise act irresponsibly casting alter own longstanding perceptions behavior overturn considered legislative judgment verdicts, some doing unsupported assumptions. 7 conclude, therefore, convict, State burden remaining impeach hold cannot. 8 Of course, State's could perhaps regarded convinced 12 nine; compelling required convince had, fact, 24 36 jurors. remains jurors—a substantial jury—were evidence. disagreement doubt, particularly heavy jury, dissenters' views, That men disagree equivalent nor indicate infidelity Jury finding regularly sustained though justified Quarles, 387 551, 554 (CA4 1967); Bell 185 302, 310 1950); judge reached same Takahashi 143 118, 122 (CA9 1944); appellate judges closely divided evidnece 140 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 60, 433 1160, 1166 (1970); Manuel-Baca, 421 781, 783 1970). want equated existence emerges clearly federal court, operates rule instructed defendant Holt 218 245, 253, 31 2, 6, 54 1021 (1910); Agnew 165 36, 51, 235, 241, 624 (1897); W. Mathes & E. Devitt, Practice Instructions § 8.01 (1965), agree unanimously acquitted, merely given new trial. Downum 372 734, 736, 83 1033, 1034, 10 100 (1963); Dreyer Illinois, 187 71, 85 86, 23 28, 32—33, 79 (1902); Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 580, (1824). If indicates appear receive directed rather retrial. rendered out automatically invalidated three. deprived III attacks permitting his. serves purpose subject challenge. 'facilitate, expedite, reduce Lewis, 129 800, 804, Southern S69 893, 894 (1911), permitted serious crimes five assent most stipulated. discern nothing classification. free try defendants juries men. Williams Florida, 399 78, 1893, 26 446 Three here what earlier said, lower proof. To obtain categories law, prove number increases seriousness severity imposed. perceive unconstitutional invidiously discriminatory, insisting carries severe punishments issue. 11 insists dispensing disadvantaged compared those commit crimes. With respect latter, correct; make difficult well ultimately acquitted offense. indicated, denial law; treat offenders differently violating rights charged lesser As triable position easier five, challenging Legislature. body obviously intended vary punishment. remain unconvinced anything defective sense. IV urges nighttime warrant unlawful absence excuse failing and, further, subsequent claimed Johnson's beside point here, clear properly characterized entry against Prior brought committing magistrate advise set bail. time detention commitment. Consequently, conducted challenged 'by means sufficiently distinguishable primary Wong Sun 371 471, 407, 417, 441 (1963). 13 14 Affirmed. BLACKMUN, concurring.* N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join Court's add comment, obvious saying, imply regard split-verdict system wise one. My conclude constitutionally offensive. Were legislator, disfavor matter policy. Our task pursue strike happens impress undesirable hesitate say, either, employing 9—3 75% minimum, afford me great difficulty. points out, 362, 'a jury' convinced. 18 POWELL, concurring 69—5035 69—5046. 19 concur convictions based did deprive my Oregon differ expressed plurality WHITE, views separately. stands proposition courts entitled jury.1 source right process, consistently interpreted Court, commands citizens subjected accorded fair context 'American justice.' Id., 149, 1447. accused person peers cherished element English common long American Revolution. country, prior Duncan, every adopted adjudicatory calling extensive use petit juries. 150 1448; Turner 379 466, 471 9, 546, 549, 424 (1965). Because assures interposition impartial assessment one's between accusers, deservedly ranks jurisprudence. principle am full accord. 21 petitioner sought raise question, left open court contemplates verdict.2 concluded applicability, found unnecessary decide requires unanimity. occurred several years date Duncan. now us, decided. Accordingly, read foreclosing consideration guaranteed corollary requirement unanimous. 22 concedes nonretroactivity prevents raising classic 'fundamental fairness' language there. Instead claims joined premised 1072, For stated opinion, Louisiana's undercuts prosecutions State. violation establishing contours divide depending possible punishment: five-juror, verdict; concur; 12-juror, La.Const., Article VII, 41; La.Code Crim.Proc., 782. Such distinctions classes discrimination unless basis. shown rationality tri-level system. I, affirming below.3 69—5046 today, Apodaca unanswered squarely presented. insofar concludes accord major premise based. Its concept identical detail Amendment.4 think elements within meaning embodied incorporated Fortas, 213, 1459, 1460, said: 'Neither logic history intent draftsmen possibly provision applied total gloss decisions supplied.' unbroken line back late 1800's, Justices recognized, virtually dissent, indispensable features Andres 333 740, 748—749, 68 880, 884, 1055 (1948); Patton 281 276, 288—290, 50 254, 74 854 (1930); Hawaii Mankichi, 190 197, 211—212, 787, 788, 1016 (1903) (see Harlan's 586, 450, Thompson Utah, 170 343, 355, 620, 624, 42 1061 (1898).5 presumed trials, function performed result mandated history.6 reasoning runs throughout precedents amending guarantee framers desired preserve safeguard known law.7 Bill Rights adopted, established attributes law.8 It seems me, precedent, Sixth, imposes provide This intendment clouded passage time, gloss. 597, Peckham, speaking eight stated: 28 '(W)hen constitution legislation manner civil ac- See, R. Perry, Sources Liberties 270, 282, 288, 429 (1959); Judge Story, Commentaries 652—653 (1st ed. 1833). Blackstone, *376; Forsyth, History Trial By 238—258 (1852); M. Hale, Analysis Law England 119 (1716). 29 tions tried, entire conformity character Government (the States) themselves form twelve number, not. .' 30 Again, (1912), true, Courts went dispense altogether. conclusion, grounded limited accepted recent years,9 based, precedents, repudiation size commented distinction requirements suggested appropriate framework analysis 'I whatever today impose States. practice fundamental—that obligatory States.' 1459. 33 addressed essentials particular binding An affirmative answer, ignoring strong previously Jordan, unwarranted unwise scope incorporation doctrine applies jury. 34 importance attaches derives special confidence repose 'body determine innocence arbitrary enforcement.' 87, 1899, safeguarding function, preferring commonsense bulwark 'against corrupt overzealous prosecutor complaint, biased, eccentric judge,'10 lies core dedication determination innocence.11 brings mandate process. adequately preserved jury-verdict Constitution. believe, experience elsewhere, high greater community, 12. assured provides government meeting prosecutorial duty.12 35 Moreover, 'jot-for-jot case-for-case'13 derogates federalism basic name uniform application standards embarked course interpretation deprives freedom experiment processes different model. understandable unwillingness finds unnecessarily rigid (e.g., 446), culminated dilution were, until decisions, seriously questioned. doubly consequence labeled Harlan 'constitutional schizophrenia,' id., 136, detrimental justice systems. Although day expression opinions similar Chief Harlan, Stewart Fortas14 defining sound interpreting blind adherence details standards.15 While Civil War Amendments altered substantially balance federalism, strains credulity variations procedure. age empirical study increasingly relied foundation decisionmaking, merits opportunity affords people choose, become 'laboratory' range procedural alternatives. innovations grow diversity always great, imagination unimpeded demands national uniformity exists adequacy local responsiveness marked development economic social reforms country,16 barred unduly restrictive Clause, lead valuable determining—fairly expeditiously—the accused. 37 Viewing controversy fresh look infirmity Oregon. product amendment, approved appears patterned Institute's Procedure.17 echoed recently abandoned enactment.18 Less-than-unanimous viewed approval Bar Association's Project.19 Those studied mechanism recommended deviation historic considerations significant. Removal minimize potential hung occasioned bribery irrationality. Furthermore, speak single voice often leads, agreement among none compromise all, despite frequent compromise.20 Quite sitting advisable adoption provision, kind legitimate experimentation blueprint.21 38 Petitioners addition contention 'incorporates' assert Oregon's offends systematic exclusion group citizenry participating identifiable minorities service (see, Whitus Georgia, 385 545, 87 643, 599 (1967); Strauder West Virginia, 303, 664 (1880)), entitled, drawn representative cross section community. 100, 1905; Alexander 405 625, 634, 1221, 1227, 536 (1972) (Douglas, J., concurring). contend undercut implicitly room prohibited venire selection process—the viewpoints. They argue result—whether unjust racism, bigotry, emotionally inflamed fears materialize majority, responding extraneous pressures, ignores minority. risk, fail meet inherent commits untrained laymen random part, least, majority-verdict rely underlies trial: systems faithfully perform assigned duty. DOUGLAS' dissent rest assumption duty minority's viewpoint deliberation. Characterizing 'polite academic conversation,' 'courtesy dialogue,' obligation deliberate outset. 356, 1643, 152. No freely shut off competing implied record participation be, differences merit speculative concerns petitioners reflected justify apprehension bound responsibility. presumption regularity vacuum since disposal protective devices diminish significantly prospect irresponsibility. Even sworn, wilfully irresponsible wide availability peremptory cause.22 likelihood miscarriage diminished judge's instructions, detailing burdens proof, informing weigh jurors,23 reminding solemn imposed oaths. retain direct acquittals lacking, aside public emotion pretrial publicity threatens broad grant changes venue,24 restrictions extent press coverage.25 light protections unlikely 'ten-of-twelve' account increase injustice biased prejudiced recall White's admonition Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 102, 84 1594, 1616, 678 (1964), 'protects real dangers, remote possibilities.' affirmance convictions. DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL concur, dissenting. 43 Constitutions. Their claim, radical departure traditions. mention innocence, say Yet almost inconceivable anyone questioned And, indeed, finally arose little disposing 368. 45 through Brennan, that: 46 '(The) command community applications critical moral force diluted leaves innocent being condemned. important society going ordinary affairs adjudge convincing proper factfinder utmost certainty. 'Lest stature explicitly protects except necessary charged.' Ibid. 48 similarly assumed dispute After explicit Seventh Publishing company Fisher, 166 464, 618, 1079, 'unanimity peculiar authorities needed sustain proposition.' 468, 619. Like arose. dealing required.1 597; 854; 748, 1055. Today bases discarded centuries shunted aside.2 49 today's anomalous: prosecutions. How stem Amendment? 1948 verdict: 51 'Unanimity apply. extends issues—character degree crime, punishment—which embodies conclusions questions submitted it.' 884. 52 man's property taken away vote, yet stripped squared land settled traditional process? 53 Rule 31(a) Rules Procedure states, 'The unanimous.' concurrence Congress pursuant KF62 3771. prosecution prosecution. how maintain inconsistent dual positions. have, advocates duties operating watered-down version guarantees. Malloy Hogan, 10—11, 1489, 1495, 653: 55 'We guarantees First Gitlow York (268 625), supra; Cantwell Connecticut, 296, 60 1213; ex rel. Gremillion NAACP, 366 293, 81 1333, 301, prohibition unreasonable searches seizures Ker California, 374 23, 1623, 726, counsel Gideon Wainwright (372 335, 792, 799), enforced according protect personal encroachment. coerced confession involving policies privilege itself, suggestion tribunal. notion 'watered-down, Rights." Malloy, Self-Incrimination proposition, mentioned, accused's silence proceeding justified.' 11, 1495. 79, 1609, 678. equation reaffirmed Griffin 380 609, 615, 1229, 1233, 106, Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 1622, 694. 57 Similarly, Confrontation Black careful observe guarantee, 'like compelled self-incrimination, 'to encroachment." Pointer Texas, 400, 406, 1065, 1069, 923. Cf. Dutton Evans, 74, 81, 210, 215, 213. 58 Likewise, Double Jeopardy Marshall wrote '(o)nce (391 491) Governments.' Benton Maryland, 395 784, 795, 89 2056, 2063, 707. coextensive coverage followed Speedy Klopfer North Carolina, 386 222, 988, 993, 59 158 30, 1452, prohibitions Governments. 1459 (Fortas, Only diverged aberration later rectified. Wolf Colorado, 25, 1359, 1782, ban enforceable declined incorporate exclusionary Weeks 232 383, 341, 652. Happily, gap partially closed Elkins 364 206, 80 1437, 1669 completely bridged Mapp Ohio, 367 1684, 1081. observed '(t)his hesitated enforce strictly speech press, notice fair, rule' concerned. 656, 1692. later, obtaining search Amendments," Aguilar 108, 110, 1509, 1512, 723; 'standard reasonableness Amendments.' 33, 1630, 726. 61 Fourteenth, proceedings, 'due process' it, gives Rights. 62 Holmes, Truax Corrigan, 257 312, 344, 124, 133, 66 Brandeis, Ice Liebmann, 285 262, 311, 371, 386, 76 747, thought allowed improvise remedies ills. area 'thou shalt nots' conspicuous Just Compensation Fifth vigor Chicago, baron Q.R. 226, 979. 63 Do 'watered down' Clause? Or paring protected up fully Government? 64 rights—whether concern speech, seizures, prosecutions, bail, cruel unusual extend, everyone, cold reality touch mostly castes society. refer, blacks, Chicanos, one-mule farmers, agricultural workers, off-beat students, victims ghetto. Are giving diluting rights? everyone governmental intrusion overreaching. idea obnoxious relegated second-class citizenship. construe permit 'experiment' people, veritable Pandora's box. hate prejudice versatile forces degrade scheme.3 65 That, Rights, charter chief Black, alarmed appointed super-legislative gone too far. balancing done written adopted. determine, granted ultimate reach let veto, precisely Government. 67 approves diminishes reliability First, eliminates circumstances rationally persuaded while nonetheless lesser-included Second, permits prosecutors enjoy conviction-acquittal ratio ordinarily returned diminution flows nonunanimous debate soon attained, dissident might, chance, able majority. persuasion occasionally occur applies: 'In roughly ten, eventually succeeds reversing initial importance.'4 One explanation phenomenon take notes imperfect memories, forensic forcing defend conflicting recollections flushes nuances go overlooked. collective effort piece puzzle historical truth, cut short Louisiana. immediately obtained, (There happened 10—2 minutes Apodaca's case.) sure, jurisdictions majorities normally prevail end, tenth rough-and-tumble reverse preliminary perception innocence. extracts automatic check hasty fact-finding relieving hear dissenters. dissenters whose unneeded human teaches polite conversation substitute earnest robust mentioned earlier, courtesy dialogue transpired lasted minutes. understand why lift justifying applauded tradition demand document study. 70 88, 446, 'What few experiments occurred—usually area—indicate discernible difference results different-sized short, neither currently available theory suggests advantageous composed fewer members.' 101—102, 1906. change defendant. showing 3:9 (Louisiana) 2:10 (Oregon) acquittal. shows overwhelmingly favors wins side, reservations uncertain refer sentences. Thus, forceful day, cause exercise caution. Obviously, temper opposing faction's certainty 73 impact deadlocked. occurs 5.6% time. deadlocked juries, Kalven Zeisel 56% contain one, two, 44% (of 56%) 12% 56%).5 eliminating deadlocks, loses, band outcomes favorable (3.67 1) slightly Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Zeisel, 461, 488 (Table 139) (1966). one-and-two-dissenting-juror better, gaining 4.25 statutes face deceptively neutral, stacks truth-determining step accusatorial proud boast. barricade maintained. equate analytically fallacious bar, double jeopardy, retrial 79. Nevertheless, effectuation other. Compare 1081, 1782. 75 Suppose begins 9:3 10:2 Is lingering verdict? doubt? Learned Hand 'as litigant dread lawsuit else sickness death.'6 level multiplies. Any faced awesome innocent. Facts elusive two-faced. What overtones another. Every crosses treacherous ground, irrelevant charge penalty, extremely character. 77 risk loss 'stigmatized conviction' factors emphasized Winship sustaining man condemned 1072. 78 err side letting sending jail. 'concrete innocence.' 363, patience part Up price seemed high. Now 'law order' judicial mood causes barricades lowered. embedded directly changed introduced amendment. Would relax resorting eight-to-four rule? holdings future invalidate three-to-two two-to-one convictions? 82 next elimination innocence? Frankfurter, writing 802—803, 1009, 'It unthinkable bring book heinous deeply stirs popular sentiment legislature emotional storms occasion sweep enact thereafter indictment murder, following attempted rape, presumptive cast killing. Can statute fashion penal codes procedures enforcing them? Why so? inherited emerged dark barbaric times, conception dominated refused put hazard fails remove notion—basic rightly boasts society—is historic, content process.' Accordingly repeat, caused death another.' vast restructuring entailed political action. Until rewritten, present construe. served well. lifetime appointees, sit happenstance, last Committee Revision Proof inquisition. amendments setting standards, fined imprisoned derogation indisputably land. BRENNAN, joins, dissenting.* Readers understandably puzzled 11—1 5046, 404, 1628, 184, agrees Brother POWELL way circumstance, arguable Apodaca, Madden, Cooper 69-5046 event, obscure specific Amendment's however construed, words Brothers STEWART, MARSHALL, joined. Emotions run trials. fairly neutral begun surpass unmoved unfolds them. enter deliberations sense restrain returning positions conclusion. leeway matters, imagine accurate When member others. sufficient, grace. groups Nation participate voices heard. vindicates right. Majority destroy join, announcement 491. Therefore, unlike 1308. purports insistent message extending nearly century. E.g., Carter Comm., 396 320, 518, 549 Hernandez 347 475, 667, 98 866 (1954); Mississippi, 332 463, (1947); Norris Alabama, 294 587, 1074 (1935); 177 442, 687, 839 (1900); (1880). ensure universal justice. meaningful—the returned. judgment, panel race class.* rests 549—550, 646; 447, 689; 310. selected assure 308 309, result, cf. Witherspoon 510, 519—520, 1770, 1775—1776, 776; 1073, Today's grossly undermines assurances. bigotry inadequate clear. 309. And corroded conspicuously split along lines. complement ensuring performance vital functions 94 denigrate acknowledge imperfect, enable drape mantle circumstances. impervious area. recognition risks misbehavior theme unifying series jeopardy facile becomes departure. Why, sometimes passion prejudice, venue? Groppi Wisconsin, 505, 490, 571; Irvin Dowd, 717, 1639, 751; improperly, inflammatory parte influence officers? Sheppard Maxwell, 333, 1507, 600; Parker Gladden, 420; 424. obey bench, information cautionary accompanies Cf., Bruton 123, 1620, 476; Jackson Denno, 368, 1774, 908. belongs systematically excluded? 866. 95 So engrained law's refusal engage after-the-fact review deliberations, safeguards surely requisites, preserves linking contemporary simple effective method endorsed combat injuries inflicted prejudice. dissent. 97 cuts heart inseparable defendant: submit Together, occupy place scheme, protecting skeleton remains, strips meaning. refrain adding protest join. 99 frighteningly bear much discussion. asked nature 'jury' provided guide, demonstrated convincingly, compels feature 'functional' allows strip away, characteristic know Two ago, discards, utterly ominously tribunal bears label 'jury,' presently laymen, group, judgment. More distressing treatment cavalier asserts nine. since, Williams, surplusage. world there, entertain hearing know, senseless ask, additional present. second happened: defendant's circumstances, violence 101 not, bar 'reasonable doubt' bars complete non sequitur. rule, viewed, establishes prerequisite overcome doubts; happen so. reference wholly 707 (1969). 102 prevailing notions held. free, consistent nullity retrial, stronger can: available, old disappeared, if, example, demeanor witnesses different. create produced doubts. 103 respectfully reject attributable 'irrationality' needed. properly, competent person, enters essence Each familiar characteristics capacity commonsense, laymen's fence fences whole rests. pointed danger, excluding groups, elsewhere requirement. emphasized, fencing-out problem goes groups. unheard spokesman, viewpoint, himself—and view, enough. 41, provides: 'Section 41. Legislature election drawing cases; provided, woman she filed clerk District declaration her desire service. All shall, Cases, labor, capital, 782, 'Cases Cases imprisonment Except 780, waived.' contains lengthy ancient Hebrew, Greek, Roman England. 19th century civilized generally 149—150, 1447—1448, (1968). [This 69-5046, et al. post, Page 404.] right, reserved 'serious.' 159—162, 1452; Bloom 194, 1477, 522 (1968); Baldwin York, 66, 1886, 437 raised Carcerano consolidated disposed opinion. issues Part arrest. invalid. III, Constitution: Crimes Jury.' Swain 202, 211, 824, 831, 759 stating, dictum, 'Alabama adheres common-law Amendment.' (Emphasis supplied.) attained 467—468, 619, 1079 Springville Thomas, 707, 1172 (1897). determining evaluation of, strict limitations on, 117, 122—129, 1914, (1970) (separate J.). example adjudication 'petty' excluded 'offenses Colonies.' 'no Framers depart practice.' 1453. (appearing 119—121, 1915, 446). Also approach exhaustive Sparf 273, (1895), empowered 'fact.' Rather attempting fact-law desirable Colonial accounts numerous text accompanying 5), subsumed term 'jury trial.' reason, conference committee's revision House draft offered precedents. admitted ambiguity override unambiguous 123 1918, 446. was, measure, focus longer regarding constitutionality resolved focusing ascertainment imagined afforded element. Rather, fundamentality Anglo-American jurisprudential readily infra. 156, 1451. 72, 1890. strongly felt role protector 'innocence consequences partiality undue bias prosecution,' country's history, final arbiters arising factual legal. allow pose oppression, favoring above Croteau, Vt. (1849); Howe, Juries Judges Law, Harv.L.Rev. 582 (1939). preference decisionmaking Ind.Const., 19; Md. Const., XV, 5. Brady 373 83, 1194, 215 Wyley Warden, 742, 746 (CA4), cert. denied, 389 863, 121, 131 Beavers 236 Ind. 141 Eastern 118 (1957). research affected requirements. frequently cited (The (Phoenix 1971)), demanded 461. Where required, statistics 3% estimated 2.5% cases—cases demanded. Given percentage disparity attributed, possibility impossible represents obtained offensive 181, 1465 (Harlan, dissenting). 173—183, 1461—1467 dissenting); concurring); 76—77, 1892 (Burger, C.J., 143, 1928 Stewart, Douglas' 637 4, 1228, (1972). 'incorporationist' precedent applying various courts. Fortas' 214, Brandeis' oft-quoted 280, 309—311, 747 (1932), stultifying substantive doctrine. ALI, 335 (1930). Act 1967, chapter 80, (Great Britain). Association, Project Standards Justice, 1.1 (Approved Draft 1968) commentary, 25—28). Jury: Notes Controversy, Chi.B.Rec. 195 Samuels, Act, Mod.L.Rev. 16, 24—27 Comment, Waiver Unanimity—Some Doubts About Reasonable Doubt, U.Chi.L.Rev. 438, 444—445 Should Verdicts Be Unanimous Cases?, Ore.L.Rev. 417 Gann, 254 Or. 463 570 Approval compel acceptance fairness Francis Resweber, 329 459, 374, 377, 422 (1947) (Frankfurter, Full coupled laws above, assist context. 209—222, 829, 751 (1961). 600 (1966); Estes 381 532, 543 559 (5th 1891): 'A understood vi termini, impartially selected, had. unconstitutional.' 1969 Term six six. infra, 388—394. Story's cite necessary. codify ever largely unquestioned assumption. 1079. origin recorded Anonymous Case, Lib. Assisarum (1367), reprinted Pound T. Plucknett, Readings System Common 155—156 (3d 1927). repeating here: 'Mapp supervisory consequently, obliteration relating arrests sounded knell federalism; rather, (364 1669) healthy depends avoidance needless conflict courts' urging '(f)ederal-state cooperation promoted mutual criteria approaches." 31, 1629. 490 (1967). Jury, 3, 460. Updated: Vote Deadlocked Conviction Per Cent 11:1............................................ 10:2............................................ 9:3............................................ 8:4............................................. 7:5............................................ 6:6............................................ 5:7............................................ 4:8............................................ 3:9............................................ 2:10........................................... 1:11........................................... - _______ 100% Sample—48. Lectures Legal Topics, Association City 105 (1926). 404. 268 1138 (1925); 1213 (1940); 301 (1961); 726 653 (1964); (1969); Chicago 979 923 notwithstanding BLACKMUN's disclaimer, 365, 1635, stop approving 8—4 7—5.

Classification Label: 0