Arrest of Mr Ballew for Conferring a Misdeed for Demonstrating a Profane Movement Film - Assignment Example

Ballew v. Georgia (1978) Summary of Case The defendant, Mr. Ballew was arrested for conferring a misdeed for demonstrating a profane movement film of pictures in the Paris Adult Theater where he was a supervisor. Subsequently, he was captured together with his clerk and charged in the Fulton County Criminal Court by, a five bench jury, which was selected to hear his case. He was indicted for his wrongdoing under the Georgia law although appealed in the eyes of the Court of Appeal of the Georgia State asserting that a trial before a jury short of six persons was illegal; the proof justifying his conviction was inadequate and the film indicated was not revolting according to the First Amendment. In addition, he contended either that the two tallies he was being indicted for added up to double jeopardy/ twofold risk or the seizing of the movies was illicit and illegitimate. On the other hand, the court dismissed these conflicts subsequently denying him certiorari, building its contention in light of the instance of McIntyre v. State in which the defendants was denied certiorari (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Short Fact Summary A five bench jury charged the defendant. Synopsis of the Rule of Law “Because of the fundamental importance of the jury trial to the American system of criminal justice, any further reduction [of the number of members on a jury below six] that promotes inaccurate & possibly biased decision-making, that causes untoward differences in verdicts, & that prevents juries from truly representing their communities, attains constitutional significance” (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Facts The applicant was charged with two wrongdoing counts for disseminating revolting movement film of pictures, by a five-person jury impaneled according to the Georgia law. Issue What is the constitutional sufficiency of a jury direction on scienter & valuable, instead of, real knowledge of the film's substance. Does a criminal prosecution in a state by a five-person jury disregard the privilege of an accused to be charged by jury as provided by the Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments? Whether the film was disgusting or not/ vulgarity? Ruling In delivering its ruling, the Court of Supreme decided that a five person jury does not meet the sacred edge or constitutional requirements as provided by the Sixth Amendment of the United States’ constitution that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. For this reason, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the accused but consequently giving a disclaimer that it wouldn’t achieve alternate issues. Case in point, as he would like to think, which agreed to other Justices' sentiments, Justice Blackmun expressed that a criminal trial presided by a less than six person jury considerably undermined the certifications of the Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments and subsequently, the condition of Georgia has no persuasive contention, notwithstanding, the advocacy and claim for inefficient budgetary allocation and time to defend the decision of decreasing a jury from six persons to five (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Conclusion Thus, from their assessments before conveying the judgment all the judges including Blackmun, J., Marshall, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Burger, C.J., Rehnquist, J., Brennan, J., Stewart and Powell, J., agreed that that the instance of Ballew v. Georgia issue of whether a criminal trial by a state, which constrained a jury to five denied the charged individual a right enshrined in the constitution and provided to him/her by the Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments disregarded such secured rights (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Historical Background Right to a Twelve Person Jury The belief that a jury ought to comprise of twelve persons goes once again to the 1300 when the courts then had taken the position that a jury must comprise of twelve persons. For instance, 1898, the court stated, "A jury embodied twelve persons, not one or the other pretty much" and this was an established requirement. Nonetheless, the court discovered this issue being a recorded mishap in light of the fact that it fizzled to recognize the roles, capacities and history a jury played in the U.S. legal system. However, in 1970 on account of Williams v. Florida, the court reexamined this decision regarding the size of a jury in this situation which included a criminal conviction, by reaffirming a ruling of a six jury person in Florida, who had delivered the judgment sentencing the accused. Hence, in reaffirming the decision the court referred claimed the Sixth Amendment expressed nothing at all in regard to the sizes of a jury despite the fact that a twelve panel jury had customarily been utilized as a part of the American legal framework, henceforth, termed the issue a "recorded mishap", which was intended to satisfy the expectations of the constitution framers concerning the capacities and roles of the juries. Consequently, the court criticized its introductory words and sanctioned the decision in Williams v. Florida, holding that a six jury person fulfilled constitutional thresholds of the Sixth Amendment. However, Harlan, J. firmly castigated the decision by most of the judges considering how and where the court could draw a line on the span of the jury size. Also, in Apodaca v Oregon and Johnson v Louisiana cases, of 1972, the court decided the legality of the laws of states, which permitted convictions of accused persons with a less than a six jury person. Case in point, Oregon permitted convictions on 10 to 3 vote while Louisiana allowed a 9 to 3 vote in favor of a conviction. Therefore, to focus the legitimacy of the state laws, the court voted on the issue on a 5-4 and consequently, maintained both laws of the states, with the five judges substantiating the decisions frankly that the Sixth Amendment obliged unanimity. Besides, the court expressed that the Sixth Amendment just requested that a jury comprise of just enough size of persons, be a representative of community so that they can cultivate pondering and shield the jury from eternal threats of intimidation. What's more, the conclusion from the instances of Johnson v. Louisiana and Apodaca v. Oregon likewise embraced a comparable thinking pretty much as was on account of Williams v. Florida that unanimity of juries amid making decisions could have been the proposition that the Bill Rights was proposed accomplishing when it was passed. However, the first Congress upbraided the dialect that would have made this interest particular concerning the consistent thinking by a jury with Blackmun, J. agreeing with the contention saying that, naturally he would have reservations concerning decisions of 8-4 votes or 7-5 votes. Accordingly, in their decisions, the four varying judges contended saying that the evidence beyond reasonable doubt/past sensible uncertainty prerequisite by the constitution was debilitated unavoidably by laws of states, which allowed non-unanimity in criminal proceedings. Along these lines, generally it is obvious that the necessity for a twelve jury person has been a sensitive issue that has been thought upon by and large, and that evoked contradicting feelings by diverse judges. In this manner, the lawfulness of such an issue as explained in the previously stated cases ought to be subjected to the protected limit necessity of the of the Sixth Amendment to guarantee that it doesn't disaffirm alternate revisions, which secure the privileges of individuals like the Fifth Amendment that ensures accuse persons have the right to be tried by an unbiased jury. Role of the Jury as Articulated by the Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution characterizes a portion of the parts juries. For instance, the court expressed that the Sixth Amendment likewise requests that a jury comprise of just enough size of boards that can encourage thought; give a cross-segment of group representation and shield the board from outside intimidation (Williams v. Florida, 1970). From the previously stated, it is clear that the juries are on a very basic level went for protecting people from the brutality of the administration as e.g. enunciated in the instance of Williams v. Florida. In addition, as was noted on accounts of Williams v. Florida and Duncan v. Louisiana a jury's role is keeping respondents from the state mistreatment. Giving an accused individual the privilege to be attempted by the peer's jury, helped shield the charged from the enthusiastic prosecutor or an one-sided judge as contended in Duncan v. Louisiana where it was expressed that, "Giving an accused the privilege to be tried by a jury of his companions, provided him with an endless protection against the degenerate or exuberant prosecutor and against the consistent, one-sided, or capricious judge." (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968). Hence, by permitting the jury play the capacity of attempting the blamed, the group gets included in deciding the decision of the blamed by applying the practical judgment skills for a common person. Fundamental Protections to Accused Person under the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment limits the state from making unlawful seizures and quests on individuals' property. Along these lines, this revision ensures majorly two essential freedom privileges of persons, which incorporate (1) the privilege of individual protection. The Fourth Amendment ensures people the opportunity to personal security by disallowing outlandish inquiries on individual property or seizing of the property. (2) The right to freedom, which is free of subjective attack by the legislature e.g. free from unlawful session by police. In addition, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment ensures people have the privilege of security and due process before a fair Grand jury. In this manner, through the teaching of fuse the Supreme Court provides people the fundamental freedoms shielded by the Bill of Rights, which incorporate those of the Fourth Amendment. Phoebe C. Ellsworth Quote I concur with teacher Phoebe that, “Ideally, the knowledge, perspectives, and memories of the individual members are compared and combined, and individual errors and biases are discovered and discarded, so that the final verdict is forged from a shared understanding of the case” (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 56). This group considerations empowers juries to comprehend that there are different methods for interpreting comparative certainties of facts despite the fact that this does not incite a change of view of the jury. However, it helps make them understand that their suppositions or rather their observations are theoretical and must be overcome by gathering thoughts to take out such recognitions, predisposition and memories so that the last decision is fashioned from a typical understanding of the actualities and issues of the case. Also, juries include an agent group of society, who have different foundations and level of skill in light of the fact that the lion's share is simply the average residents from the group while a couple of others fall underneath the mean average of society members. Further, by and by many learned and experienced jurors often get dismissed from a jury bench while others who exhibit the capacity or having knowledge in the concerned case are tested amid taking the oath of serving as jury in a case at hand. Moreover, regularly lawyers select hearers for ineptitude (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 57). Along these lines from all these actualities it legitimate to say that, individual discernments, memories, and predispositions, which can radiate from social contrasts and personal conclusions can be overcome if the a jury produce a shared conviction together by considering the realities and issues of a case. Additionally, the court expressed in Williams v. Florida that the Sixth Amendment demands that a jury comprise of just enough size of panels that can cultivate consideration and give a superior decision (Williams v. Florida, 1970). Likewise, on account of Duncan v. Louisiana, it was resolved that giving the charged the privilege to be attempted by his associate’s aides secures him/her from the desirous and harsh prosecutor of the state. Further, from her investigations Phoebe C. Ellsworth inferred that the members of the jury comprehend the realities and issues of the case more than they understood the law and that the guidelines of the judge were sufficiently powerful in empowering them center their consideration on commonplace terms or coaching them in other new fields. She continued saying that despite the fact that the attendants burned a one-fifth of their time thinking seriously about the law they reliably fizzled (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 64). She finishes up saying that, there is no reason accepting that the misconception of the law by the legal hearers is a capacity of their mental capacities but instead it appears to be more conceivable that, the framework is made in such way advancing such misconstruing. For example she continues saying components, for instance, "the convoluted, specialized dialect; the dry & conceptual presentation of the law emulating the distinctive, robust, and frequently lengthy presentation of confirmation; the necessity that members of the jury translate the proof before they recognize what their decision choices are; the way that juries normally don't get duplicates of the guidelines bringing with them into the jury room; the absence of preparing in the law for legal hearers as a significant aspect of their board obligation; the general inability to find and right attendants" as the components barricading juries from attempting to perform their errands (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 64). In this manner, I accept if juries are to complete their assignments successfully; there is a requirement to hold collective consultations, so they can overcome some of these difficulties that influence and limit their capacity to execute their obligations. Additionally, it is apparent from Phoebe C. Ellsworth conclusions that the elements affecting the viability of the members of the jury performing their assignments are close to home components as well as outside variables, which are made by the framework and almost have a tendency to go for baffling the endeavors of the jury to give a superior decision. Along these lines, to overcome such inborn and unavoidable elements, there is requirement for the jury overcoming individual inclinations, memories and recognitions with the goal that they can fashion a shared belief together and think about the actualities and issues of the case. Eventually, I trust it is reasonable agreeing with Phoebe C. Ellsworth that, “Ideally, the knowledge, perspectives, and memories of the individual members are compared and combined, and individual errors and biases are discovered and discarded, so that the final verdict is forged from a shared understanding of the case” (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 64). References Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=435&page=223. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/391/145 Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (1995). "Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?" Law Quad. Notes 38, no. 2: 56-64. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=435&page=223. Read More