Petitioner
Gary Duncan
Respondent
State of Louisiana
Petitioner's Claim
That the state denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, whichthe Fourteenth Amendment guarantees at the state level.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Richard B. Sobol
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Dorothy D. Wolbrette
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 May 1968
Decision
The Court found that the state of Louisiana denied Duncan his basic right toa trial by jury. The Court maintained that this right constitutes a fundamental component of the country's justice system, which the Fourteenth Amendmentguarantees at the state level and the Sixth Amendment guarantees at the federal level. The Court also held that "a crime punishable by two years of imprisonment is considered a serious crime, not a petty crime, which does not needa jury trial."
Significance
This case represented a key movement of the U.S. Supreme Court to make the states comply with the amendments of the U.S. Constitution under the FourteenthAmendment, which applied the first eight amendments to the states, accordingto the Supreme Court majority in this case. In Duncan v. Louisiana the Court held that the state must honor the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial.
Background Amendments and the History of Trial by Jury
Trial by jury has a long history not only in the United States, but also in England where references appear as far back as the Magna Carta (1215), a charter of rights for English subjects. English colonists transplanted the customto the United States, where it received robust support. The First Congress ofthe American Colonies held on 19 October 1765 "[t]hat trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies." Inaddition, the Declaration of Independence protested against the king's wish to make judges decide cases based on the crown's will alone, not allowing trials by jury. Hence, when drafting the Constitution, the authors guaranteed this right for all federal trials in the Sixth Amendment. Later, the FourteenthAmendment granted this right to citizens in all state trials, according to some scholars and justices.
The Allegations Against Gary Duncan
On 18 October 1966, Gary Duncan, an African American teenager, saw two of hisyounger cousins talking to four white boys, while driving through Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana. Because his cousins had told him of racial incidents that occurred at the predominantly white high school to which they transferred, Duncan stopped the car and got out to see what was happening. The testimonyof the various witnesses conflicts after this point, however. Nonetheless, they all agreed that Duncan spoke to the four white boys and told his cousinsto get in the car. But the white witnesses testified in trial that before getting into his car, Duncan slapped one of the four boys, Henry Landry, on theelbow, whereas the Duncan's cousins testified that he only touched him. Despite the inconsistencies in the testimonies, the trial court believed the stateof Louisiana had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan had assaultedLandry and convicted him of simple battery.
Duncan appealed the decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court, but it refused to hear the case, maintaining that the trial court made no error in its rulingand violated no constitutional rights of Duncan's. The Louisiana Constitution granted trials by jury only in cases where capital punishment and hard labor may be imposed. Louisiana law also considered simple battery a misdemeanorcarry the maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $300 fine.
The Supreme Court's Reversal
Noticing possible violations of Duncan's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case and arguments began on 17January 1968. Since the majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed all citizens the first eight amendment rights, including the Sixth Amendment's, in state criminal trials and proceedings, it considered whether the right to a jury trial constituted "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial" as it held in Gideon v. Wainwright and other cases.
Having established that the right to trial by jury existed prior to the Constitution and was an important consideration in the authoring of the Constitution with an amendment devoted to it, the Court concluded that trial by jury was an essential component of the country's justice system. Furthermore, the Court noted that all state constitutions, including Louisiana's, granted trialsby jury for all serious offenses.
The majority next attempted to determine if Duncan's deed constituted a serious or petty offense under Louisiana law. The state argued that Duncan's crime--simple battery--was only a petty offense in that the judge sentenced him to60 days in prison. However, the Court noted that the Louisiana Legislature set the maximum penalty for simple battery at two years plus a fine. Consequently, Duncan faced a two-year prison sentence at the time of the trial. The Court compared the sentences for petty crimes in different states and at the federal level and found that many state--as well as federal--petty crimes carrya maximum six-month prison sentence and that 49 states impose no more than aone-year prison sentence for petty offenses. Therefore, in the 7-2 decision,the Court concluded that the state charged Duncan with a serious offense anddenied him a jury trial, which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution guaranteed, and reversed Duncan's conviction. The Court stated:
The two justices who dissented, however, maintained that the Constitution didnot ban a judge alone from trying and sentencing someone for simple battery.Justices Harlan and Stewart felt the history and role of the jury trial wasnot at stake in the case, but the responsibility of running state criminal justice systems was. They held that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that trials must be fair in all respects, but not that the states must uniformly provide jury trials. These justices argued that Fourteenth Amendment did not simply apply the first eight amendments to the states and that a jury trial was not necessary for a fair trial.
Despite the straightforward opinion of the Court in Duncan v. Louisiana that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to jury trials for all serious crimes, later Court decisions strayed from the thrust of the majority's argument, upholding decisions where judges denied jury trials and jury participation in sentencing. For example, in Spaziano v. Florida the Courtruled that a judge, not a jury, may impose a death sentence under Florida law.
Related Cases
Felonies and Misdemeanors
Most types of crime lend themselves to easy analysis as to whether they are felonies or misdemeanors: public drunkenness is a misdemeanor, rape is a felony; vandalism is a misdemeanor, murder a felony. Given their greater seriousness, the number of types of felony is smaller than that for misdemeanors, andindeed the federal government and most states classify as misdemeanors any crimes which are not felonies.
Rather than by the types of crimes which fall under each heading, misdemeanors and felonies are defined by the processes and penalties which attend each.In terms of penalties, length and type of incarceration are the primary factors separating the two. A misdemeanor can be punishable by fine, or by incarceration for a period less than a year. Likewise the place of incarceration--jail for the former, prison for the latter--also separates misdemeanors from felonies. As for process, all accused felons have a right to trial by jury, whereas the Supreme Court found in Baldwin v. New York (1970) that only misdemeanants accused of crimes which carry a sentence of six months or more enjoy the same right.
Sources
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
Gary Duncan
Respondent
State of Louisiana
Petitioner's Claim
That the state denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, whichthe Fourteenth Amendment guarantees at the state level.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Richard B. Sobol
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Dorothy D. Wolbrette
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 May 1968
Decision
The Court found that the state of Louisiana denied Duncan his basic right toa trial by jury. The Court maintained that this right constitutes a fundamental component of the country's justice system, which the Fourteenth Amendmentguarantees at the state level and the Sixth Amendment guarantees at the federal level. The Court also held that "a crime punishable by two years of imprisonment is considered a serious crime, not a petty crime, which does not needa jury trial."
Significance
This case represented a key movement of the U.S. Supreme Court to make the states comply with the amendments of the U.S. Constitution under the FourteenthAmendment, which applied the first eight amendments to the states, accordingto the Supreme Court majority in this case. In Duncan v. Louisiana the Court held that the state must honor the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial.
Background Amendments and the History of Trial by Jury
Trial by jury has a long history not only in the United States, but also in England where references appear as far back as the Magna Carta (1215), a charter of rights for English subjects. English colonists transplanted the customto the United States, where it received robust support. The First Congress ofthe American Colonies held on 19 October 1765 "[t]hat trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies." Inaddition, the Declaration of Independence protested against the king's wish to make judges decide cases based on the crown's will alone, not allowing trials by jury. Hence, when drafting the Constitution, the authors guaranteed this right for all federal trials in the Sixth Amendment. Later, the FourteenthAmendment granted this right to citizens in all state trials, according to some scholars and justices.
The Allegations Against Gary Duncan
On 18 October 1966, Gary Duncan, an African American teenager, saw two of hisyounger cousins talking to four white boys, while driving through Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana. Because his cousins had told him of racial incidents that occurred at the predominantly white high school to which they transferred, Duncan stopped the car and got out to see what was happening. The testimonyof the various witnesses conflicts after this point, however. Nonetheless, they all agreed that Duncan spoke to the four white boys and told his cousinsto get in the car. But the white witnesses testified in trial that before getting into his car, Duncan slapped one of the four boys, Henry Landry, on theelbow, whereas the Duncan's cousins testified that he only touched him. Despite the inconsistencies in the testimonies, the trial court believed the stateof Louisiana had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan had assaultedLandry and convicted him of simple battery.
Duncan appealed the decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court, but it refused to hear the case, maintaining that the trial court made no error in its rulingand violated no constitutional rights of Duncan's. The Louisiana Constitution granted trials by jury only in cases where capital punishment and hard labor may be imposed. Louisiana law also considered simple battery a misdemeanorcarry the maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $300 fine.
The Supreme Court's Reversal
Noticing possible violations of Duncan's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case and arguments began on 17January 1968. Since the majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed all citizens the first eight amendment rights, including the Sixth Amendment's, in state criminal trials and proceedings, it considered whether the right to a jury trial constituted "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial" as it held in Gideon v. Wainwright and other cases.
Having established that the right to trial by jury existed prior to the Constitution and was an important consideration in the authoring of the Constitution with an amendment devoted to it, the Court concluded that trial by jury was an essential component of the country's justice system. Furthermore, the Court noted that all state constitutions, including Louisiana's, granted trialsby jury for all serious offenses.
The majority next attempted to determine if Duncan's deed constituted a serious or petty offense under Louisiana law. The state argued that Duncan's crime--simple battery--was only a petty offense in that the judge sentenced him to60 days in prison. However, the Court noted that the Louisiana Legislature set the maximum penalty for simple battery at two years plus a fine. Consequently, Duncan faced a two-year prison sentence at the time of the trial. The Court compared the sentences for petty crimes in different states and at the federal level and found that many state--as well as federal--petty crimes carrya maximum six-month prison sentence and that 49 states impose no more than aone-year prison sentence for petty offenses. Therefore, in the 7-2 decision,the Court concluded that the state charged Duncan with a serious offense anddenied him a jury trial, which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution guaranteed, and reversed Duncan's conviction. The Court stated:
It is sufficient for our purposes to hold that a crime punishable bytwo years in prison is, based on past and contemporary standards in this country, a serious crime and not a petty offense. Consequently, appellant was entitled to a jury trial and it was [an] error to deny it.
The two justices who dissented, however, maintained that the Constitution didnot ban a judge alone from trying and sentencing someone for simple battery.Justices Harlan and Stewart felt the history and role of the jury trial wasnot at stake in the case, but the responsibility of running state criminal justice systems was. They held that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that trials must be fair in all respects, but not that the states must uniformly provide jury trials. These justices argued that Fourteenth Amendment did not simply apply the first eight amendments to the states and that a jury trial was not necessary for a fair trial.
Despite the straightforward opinion of the Court in Duncan v. Louisiana that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to jury trials for all serious crimes, later Court decisions strayed from the thrust of the majority's argument, upholding decisions where judges denied jury trials and jury participation in sentencing. For example, in Spaziano v. Florida the Courtruled that a judge, not a jury, may impose a death sentence under Florida law.
Related Cases
- Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900).
- District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937).
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
- Singer v. United States, 323 U.S. 338 (1945).
Felonies and Misdemeanors
Most types of crime lend themselves to easy analysis as to whether they are felonies or misdemeanors: public drunkenness is a misdemeanor, rape is a felony; vandalism is a misdemeanor, murder a felony. Given their greater seriousness, the number of types of felony is smaller than that for misdemeanors, andindeed the federal government and most states classify as misdemeanors any crimes which are not felonies.
Rather than by the types of crimes which fall under each heading, misdemeanors and felonies are defined by the processes and penalties which attend each.In terms of penalties, length and type of incarceration are the primary factors separating the two. A misdemeanor can be punishable by fine, or by incarceration for a period less than a year. Likewise the place of incarceration--jail for the former, prison for the latter--also separates misdemeanors from felonies. As for process, all accused felons have a right to trial by jury, whereas the Supreme Court found in Baldwin v. New York (1970) that only misdemeanants accused of crimes which carry a sentence of six months or more enjoy the same right.
Sources
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
User Comments Add a comment…