Court Opinion

ID: 9424046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:10:02.047445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:47.781059
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins, dissenting.
I cannot say what is and what is not a “petty crime.” I certainly believe, however, that where punishment of as much as six months can be imposed, I could not classify the offense as “petty” if that means that people tried for *160it are to be tried as if we had no Bill of Rights. Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution provides that:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury . . . .”
And in Amendment VI it is provided that:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . .”
Neither of these provisions gives any support for holding that a defendant charged with a crime is not entitled to a jury trial merely because a court thinks the crime is a “petty” one. I do not deny that there might possibly be some offenses charged for which the punishment is so minuscule that it might be thought of as petty. But to my way of thinking, when a man is charged by a governmental unit with conduct for which the Government can impose a penalty of imprisonment for any amount of time, I doubt if I could ever hold it petty. (See my dissent in Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U. S. 216, 223.) Nor do I take any stock in the idea that by naming an offense for which a man can be imprisoned a “contempt,” he is any the less charged with a crime. See Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 193 (dissenting opinion), and United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 724 (dissenting opinion). Those who commit offenses against courts should be no less entitled to the Bill of Rights than those who commit offenses against the public in general.
For these reasons I dissent from the Court’s holding that the petitioner in this case is not entitled to a trial by jury.