Analysis of Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 - Case Study Example

Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978) Ballew v. Georgia (No. 76-761) Summary of Case The petitioner, Mr. Ballew was accused of committing a misdemeanor for showing an obscene motion film of pictures in the Paris Adult Theatre where he was a manager. Consequently, he was arrested together with his cashier and arraigned in the Fulton County Criminal Court before, a five bench jury, which was chosen and sworn to hear his case. He was convicted for his crime under the Georgia law but he appealed before the Court of Appeal of the state of Georgia claiming that a trial before a jury compromising of less than six jury persons was unconstitutional; the evidence warranting his conviction was insufficient and the film showed was not obscene as per the First Amendment. Moreover, he argued either that the two counts he was being convicted for amounted to double jeopardy or the seizing of the films was illegal. However, the court rejected these contentions hence denying him certiorari basing its argument on the case of Sanders v. State and McIntyre v. State in which the petitioners were denied certiorari (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Brief Fact Summary A five-person jury charged the petitioner. 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 petitioner was charged on two misdemeanor counts for distributing obscene motion film of pictures by a five bench jury impaneled as per the Georgia law. Issue Does a criminal trial in a state by a five bench jury violate the right of the accused to be tried by jury as safeguarded by the Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments? What is the constitutional sufficiency of a jury instruction on scienter & constructive, lieu, actual knowledge of the films contents. Whether the film was obscene or not/ obscenity Vel Non? Ruling In making it its ruling, the Supreme Court held that a five bench jury doesn’t meet the constitutional threshold guarantee as stipulated by the Sixth Amendment of U.S.A. constitution, which is applicable to the states through the constitutions Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the court awarded certiorari to the petitioner but gave a disclaimer that it would not reach the other issues. For instance, in his opinion, which concurred to other Justices’ opinions, Justice Blackmun stated that a criminal trial composed of less than six juries substantially threatened the guarantees of the Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments and, therefore, the state of Georgia has no persuasive argument, in addition to, neither the dubious time saving nor financial benefit to justify the ruling of reducing a jury from six-five (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Conclusion Therefore, from their opinions before delivering the judgment all the justices including Blackmun, J., Stevens, J., White, J Powell, J., Burger, C.J., Rehnquist, J., Brennan, J., Stewart And Marshall, J., concurred that that case of Ballew v. Georgia issue whether a criminal trial by a state, which limited the jury to five deprived the accused person the rights guaranteed to him/her by the Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments violated such protected rights (Ballew v. Georgia, 1978). Historical Background Right to a Twelve Person Jury The anticipation that a jury should consist of twelve person dates back to the 1300s. The court then had taken the position that the jury must consist of twelve persons. In the year 1898, the court said, “a jury comprised of twelve persons, neither more or less" and this was a constitutional requirement. However, the court found this issue being a “historical accident” because it failed recognizing the functions and history of the jury. In 1970 in the case of Williams v. Florida, the court reconsidered this decision concerning the jury size in this case which involved a robbers’ conviction by reaffirming the decision of a six jury bench in Florida who had rendered the ruling convicting the accused. Thus, in reaffirming the ruling the court cited that the Sixth Amendment stated nothing at all regarding the jury sizes even though a twelve jury bench had traditionally been used in the American judicial system, hence, termed the issue a “historical accident”, which was meant to fulfil the intentions of the constitution framers concerning the functions of the juries. Therefore, the court denounced its initial words and ratified the ruling in Williams v. Florida, holding that a six jury bench satisfied the constitutional requirements of the Sixth Amendment even though a one justice, Harlan strongly criticized the decision by the majority of the justices wondering how and where the court could draw a line on the size of the jury. Moreover, in the cases of Johnson v Louisiana and Apodaca v Oregon, which were heard in the together in 1972, the court determined the constitutionality of the laws of states, which allowed convictions of the accused with the less than unanimous votes. For instance, Louisiana allowed convictions on 9-3 vote while Oregon allowed a 10-2 vote for a conviction. Thus, to determine the validity of the state laws, the court voted on the decision on a 5-4 and thus, upheld both laws of the states, with the five justices defending their decisions openly that the Sixth Amendment required unanimity. Moreover, the court stated that the Sixth Amendment only demanded that the jury consist of only enough size of juries that can foster deliberation; provide a cross-section of community representation and protect the panel from outside intimidation. In addition, the conclusion from the cases of Johnson v. Louisiana and Apodaca v. Oregon also adopted a similar reasoning just as was in the case of Williams v. Florida that unanimity of juries during making rulings could have been the intention that the Bill Rights was intended achieving when it was adopted. However, the first Congress denounced the language that would have made this demand particular concerning the unanimous reasoning by the jury. Moreover, Blackmun, J. concurred with this argument saying that constitutionally he would have reservations concerning rulings of 8-4 votes or 7-5 votes. Thus, in their conclusions, the four differing justices argued saying that the proof beyond reasonable doubt requirement by the constitution was weakened constitutionally by laws of states, which permitted non-unanimity of rulings during criminal convictions. Therefore, historically it is evident that the requirement for a twelve jury bench has been a contentious issue which has been deliberated upon in many cases and that evoked dissenting opinions by different justices. Therefore, the constitutionality of such an issue as articulated in the aforementioned cases should be subjected to the constitutional threshold requirement of the of the Sixth Amendment to ensure that it does not contradict the other amendments, which protect the rights of individual like the Fifth Amendment that guarantees the accused the right to due process before an impartial jury. Role of the Jury as Articulated by the Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment to the constitution of U.S.A defines some of the roles juries. For instance, as was noted in the case of Williams v. Florida and Duncan v. Louisiana a jury’s function is preventing respondents from the government’s oppression. Moreover, the court also noted that providing an accused person with the right to be tried by the peer’s jury, helped protect the accused from the overzealous prosecutor or a biased judge as argued in Duncan v. Louisiana where it was stated that, “Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.” (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968). Therefore, by allowing the jury play the function of trying the accused, the community gets involved in determining the verdict of the accused by applying the common sense of a layman. Moreover, the court stated that the Sixth Amendment also demands that a jury consist of only enough size of juries that can foster deliberation; provide a cross-section of community representation and protect the panel from outside intimidation (Williams v. Florida, 1970). Therefore. From the aforementioned, it is evident that the roles of the juries are fundamentally aimed at safeguarding individuals from the harshness of the government as e.g. articulated in the cases of Williams v. Florida and Duncan v. Louisiana. Fundamental Protections to Accused Person under the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment restricts the government from making unlawful seizures and searches on people’s property. Therefore, this amendment protects majorly two fundamental liberty rights of individual, which include (1) the right to freedom, which is free of arbitrary invasion by the government e.g. free from unlawful interrogation by police (2) the right to personal privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to personal privacy by prohibiting unwarranted searches on personal property or seizing of the property. Moreover, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to protection and due process before an impartial Grand jury. Therefore, through the doctrine of incorporation the Supreme Court guarantees individuals the fundamental liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights, which include those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Phoebe C. Ellsworth Quote I agree with professor 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 is because group deliberations enables the juries understanding that there are various ways of interpreting similar facts even though this does not provoke a change of perception of the jury, it helps make them realize that their opinions or rather their perceptions are hypothetical and can only be overcome by group deliberations to eliminate such perceptions, bias and memories so that the final verdict is forged from a common understanding of the facts and issues concerning the case. Moreover, juries encompass a representative sample of the community, who have diverse backgrounds and level of competence because the majority are just average citizens from the community while a few others below average members of the community. Further, in practice a number of many learned jurors are usually relieved from the service while others who demonstrate the ability or having knowledge to the concerned case can be challenged during taking the oath to serve as jury in the relevant case. In addition, often attorneys select jurors for incompetence (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 57). Therefore from all these facts it justifiable to say that, individual perceptions, memories and biases, which can emanate from cultural differences and individual opinions can only be overcome if the jurors forge a common ground together and deliberate on the facts and issues of the case. In addition, in the case of Duncan v. Louisiana it was determined that giving the accused the right to be tried by his peers helps protect him/her from the jealous judge of the government. Moreover, the court stated in Williams v. Florida that the Sixth Amendment also demands that a jury consist of only enough size of juries that can foster deliberation and give a better verdict (Williams v. Florida, 1970). Further, from her experiments Phoebe C. Ellsworth concluded that the jurors understood the facts and issues of the case more than they understood the law and that the instructions of the judge were sufficiently effective in enabling them focus their attention on familiar terms or mentoring them in other new areas. She went on saying that even though the jurors spent one-fifth of their time deliberating intensively on the law they consistently failed (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 64). She concludes saying that, there is no reason believing that the misunderstanding of the law by the jurors is a function of their mental abilities but rather it seems more plausible that the system is created in such way promoting such misunderstanding. For instance she goes on mentioning factors such as “the convoluted, technical language; the dry & abstract presentation of the law following the vivid, concrete, and often lengthy presentation of evidence; the requirement that jurors interpret the evidence before they know what their verdict choices are; the fact that juries usually do not get copies of the instructions taking with them into the jury room; the lack of training in the law for jurors as part of their jury duty; the general failure to discover and correct jurors” as the elements blockading juries from trying to perform their tasks (Ellsworth, 1995, p. 64). Therefore, I believe if juries are to perform their tasks effectively; there is a need for group deliberations so that they can overcome some of these challenges that affect their ability to execute their duties. Moreover, it is evident from Phoebe C. Ellsworth conclusions that the factors affecting the effectiveness of the jurors performing their tasks are not only personal factors but there are also external factors, which are created by the system and some tend to aim at frustrating the efforts of the jurors giving a better verdict. Thus, to overcome such inherent and inevitable factors, there is need for the jury overcoming personal biases, memories and perceptions so that they can forge a common ground together and deliberate on the facts and issues of the case. Ultimately, I believe it is justifiable concurring with Phoebe C. Ellsworth quote, which states 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