|
|
Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978)
Ballew v. Georgia No. 76-761 Argued November 1, 1977 Decided March 21, 1978 435 U.S. 223
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
Syllabus
Petitioner, who was charged with committing a misdemeanor, was tried before a five-person jury pursuant to Georgia law, and convicted. Though a criminal trial by a six-person jury is permissible under Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, petitioner maintains that a trial before a jury of less than six is unconstitutional, a contention that the Georgia courts rejected.
Held: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded. Pp. 229-245; 245; 245-246.
138 Ga.App. 530, 227 S.E.2d 65, reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, concluded that a criminal trial to a jury of less than six persons substantially threatens Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. Georgia has presented no persuasive argument to the contrary. Neither the financial benefit nor the more dubious time-saving benefit claimed is a factor of sufficient significance to offset the substantial threat to the constitutional guarantees that reducing the jury from six to five would create. Pp. 229-245.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE concluded that a jury of less than six would not satisfy the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. P. 245.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joined, concluded that, though the line between five- and six-member juries is difficult to justify, a line has to be drawn somewhere if the substance of jury trial in criminal cases is to be preserved. Pp. 245-246.
BLACKMUN, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 245. WHITE, J., filed a statement concurring in the judgment, post, p. 245. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 245. BRENNAN, J., filed a separate opinion, in which STEWART and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 246.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978) in 435 U.S. 223 435 U.S. 224. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EST39EMCDN5A7GP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), in 435 U.S. 223, page 435 U.S. 224. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EST39EMCDN5A7GP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978). cited in 1978, 435 U.S. 223, pp.435 U.S. 224. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EST39EMCDN5A7GP.
|