Appellant
Charles L. Maxwell
Appellee
George N. Dow, Warden of the Utah State Prison
Appellant's Claim
That he had been wrongfully convicted of robbery, based on violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
J. W. N. Whitecotton
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Alexander C. Bishop
Justices for the Court
David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, Horace Gray, Melville Weston Fuller, Joseph McKenna, Rufus Wheeler Peckham (writing for the Court), George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan I
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 February 1900
Decision
Upheld the appellant's conviction.
Significance
The Court reaffirmed the notion that due process, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, did not necessarily apply to the rights spelled out in theBill of Rights, and that state governments should be the primary defenders of most rights.
When Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, its major goal was to providecitizenship to the newly freed slaves and to guarantee their rights as citizens of both the United States and the individual states. But two parts of theFourteenth Amendment soon took on a larger meaning.
The amendment said no state government could deny "privileges and immunities"guaranteed to citizens of the United States. They also could not "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." These words echoed the Fifth Amendment, which held the federal government to the samestandard.
At first, the Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment was only meant toprotect ex-slaves. But in his dissent to the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), Justice Stephen J. Field said the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government the authority to strike down state laws that affected anyone, not just ex-slaves. That idea soon became accepted, giving people like Charles Maxwell achance to have his day in the Supreme Court.
Maxwell's Claim
In June of 1898, Maxwell had been charged with robbery in Utah. State law allowed the county's prosecuting attorney to bring charges against Maxwell without a grand jury first determining if there was enough evidence to try the case. In September, an eight-member jury found Maxwell guilty and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The following year, Maxwell petitioned the Utah State Supreme Court, asserting his conviction was unlawful and violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth,and Fourteenth amendments. The Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury to bring charges in federal cases; Maxwell argued the amendment should apply to state trials as well. Maxwell also disputed the legality of using a trial jury with only eight members, instead of the 12 recognized under English common lawand used in U.S. federal courts. Finally, he claimed that the Utah state lawsregarding the grand jury and number of jurors abridged his privileges and immunities and denied him due process, both illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Utah Supreme Court denied all of Maxwell's arguments. He remained in prison as he appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 4 December 1899. Unfortunately, Maxwell did not fare any better at the federal level. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the conviction was lawful and theUtah laws were valid.
In his opinion, Justice Peckham noted that in a previous case, Hurtado v.California (1884), the Court ruled that due process under the FourteenthAmendment did not require a state to use a grand jury to bring an indictmentin a murder case tried under state law. The Court now applied the same standard to Maxwell's circumstance.
Peckham went on to say that, in general, a citizen's privileges and immunities do not necessarily apply to the Bill of Rights. States have the right to use an eight-member trial jury instead of 12, or to pass other laws that mightconflict with Congress's desires or the Constitution. Peckham trusted the states to usually do what was right. "There can be no just fear that the liberties of the citizens will not be respected by the states respectively," Peckhamwrote. "It is a case of self-protection, and the people can be trusted to look out for and care for themselves."
Justice Harlan, however, had major disagreements with the majority decision.He asserted that privileges and immunities did include the rights spelled outin the Bill of Rights, an idea known as "total incorporation," and a state could not take them away. He believed Maxwell should have had a trial with 12jurors, as should every citizen accused of a crime in a state court.
Harlan went on to attack how the Court interpreted due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In previous cases, he said, the Court had ruled that due process required a state government to provide just compensation if it took a person's private property. "It would seem that the protection of private property is of more consequence than the protection of life and liberty of the citizen."
After Maxwell
The Court's verdict in Maxwell allowed states to use fewer than 12 jurors in a criminal case. But, in a broader sense, the verdict highlighted thenarrow definition of privileges and immunities held by many justices for a number of years. In a 1908 case, Twining v. New Jersey, the Court said that some of the rights protected under the first eight amendments "may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process." But a more liberal view of protecting privileges and immunities from state laws did not fully develop until after World War II.
Maxwell remained the law of the land until the 1968 decision in Duncan v. Louisiana. In that case, the justices ruled 7-2 that states had touse 12 jurors when trying serious criminal cases, though it left the definition of "serious" undefined.
Related Cases
Charles L. Maxwell
Appellee
George N. Dow, Warden of the Utah State Prison
Appellant's Claim
That he had been wrongfully convicted of robbery, based on violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
J. W. N. Whitecotton
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Alexander C. Bishop
Justices for the Court
David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, Horace Gray, Melville Weston Fuller, Joseph McKenna, Rufus Wheeler Peckham (writing for the Court), George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan I
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 February 1900
Decision
Upheld the appellant's conviction.
Significance
The Court reaffirmed the notion that due process, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, did not necessarily apply to the rights spelled out in theBill of Rights, and that state governments should be the primary defenders of most rights.
When Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, its major goal was to providecitizenship to the newly freed slaves and to guarantee their rights as citizens of both the United States and the individual states. But two parts of theFourteenth Amendment soon took on a larger meaning.
The amendment said no state government could deny "privileges and immunities"guaranteed to citizens of the United States. They also could not "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." These words echoed the Fifth Amendment, which held the federal government to the samestandard.
At first, the Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment was only meant toprotect ex-slaves. But in his dissent to the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), Justice Stephen J. Field said the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government the authority to strike down state laws that affected anyone, not just ex-slaves. That idea soon became accepted, giving people like Charles Maxwell achance to have his day in the Supreme Court.
Maxwell's Claim
In June of 1898, Maxwell had been charged with robbery in Utah. State law allowed the county's prosecuting attorney to bring charges against Maxwell without a grand jury first determining if there was enough evidence to try the case. In September, an eight-member jury found Maxwell guilty and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The following year, Maxwell petitioned the Utah State Supreme Court, asserting his conviction was unlawful and violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth,and Fourteenth amendments. The Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury to bring charges in federal cases; Maxwell argued the amendment should apply to state trials as well. Maxwell also disputed the legality of using a trial jury with only eight members, instead of the 12 recognized under English common lawand used in U.S. federal courts. Finally, he claimed that the Utah state lawsregarding the grand jury and number of jurors abridged his privileges and immunities and denied him due process, both illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Utah Supreme Court denied all of Maxwell's arguments. He remained in prison as he appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 4 December 1899. Unfortunately, Maxwell did not fare any better at the federal level. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the conviction was lawful and theUtah laws were valid.
In his opinion, Justice Peckham noted that in a previous case, Hurtado v.California (1884), the Court ruled that due process under the FourteenthAmendment did not require a state to use a grand jury to bring an indictmentin a murder case tried under state law. The Court now applied the same standard to Maxwell's circumstance.
Peckham went on to say that, in general, a citizen's privileges and immunities do not necessarily apply to the Bill of Rights. States have the right to use an eight-member trial jury instead of 12, or to pass other laws that mightconflict with Congress's desires or the Constitution. Peckham trusted the states to usually do what was right. "There can be no just fear that the liberties of the citizens will not be respected by the states respectively," Peckhamwrote. "It is a case of self-protection, and the people can be trusted to look out for and care for themselves."
Justice Harlan, however, had major disagreements with the majority decision.He asserted that privileges and immunities did include the rights spelled outin the Bill of Rights, an idea known as "total incorporation," and a state could not take them away. He believed Maxwell should have had a trial with 12jurors, as should every citizen accused of a crime in a state court.
Harlan went on to attack how the Court interpreted due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In previous cases, he said, the Court had ruled that due process required a state government to provide just compensation if it took a person's private property. "It would seem that the protection of private property is of more consequence than the protection of life and liberty of the citizen."
After Maxwell
The Court's verdict in Maxwell allowed states to use fewer than 12 jurors in a criminal case. But, in a broader sense, the verdict highlighted thenarrow definition of privileges and immunities held by many justices for a number of years. In a 1908 case, Twining v. New Jersey, the Court said that some of the rights protected under the first eight amendments "may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process." But a more liberal view of protecting privileges and immunities from state laws did not fully develop until after World War II.
Maxwell remained the law of the land until the 1968 decision in Duncan v. Louisiana. In that case, the justices ruled 7-2 that states had touse 12 jurors when trying serious criminal cases, though it left the definition of "serious" undefined.
Related Cases
- Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
- Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
- Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
User Comments Add a comment…