Sample Assessments

Ballew v. Georgia was a case that was tried by the Supreme Court in 1978.  In this case, Claude Davis Ballew, a manager of an adult theater showed a movie called “Behind the Green Door.”  He was arrested and convicted of two misdemeanors on distributing obscene materials by a five-man jury (American Bar Association, 1978).  Mr. Ballew challenged the state of Georgia by appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court, for violating his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights, of being tried by a jury that was less than six, as being unconstitutional.  The state of Georgia overruled Ballew’s contentions and was sentenced to a year in jail and fined a thousand dollars.  The Supreme Court later declared that having a five-member jury was indeed too small to provide a representative cross-section of the community (Champion, Hartley, & Rabe, 2012). 

The issues that were raised by the petitioner, in this case, were that by having a five-member jury, does it deprive the accused of his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights?  The answer was “yes.”  A trial by a jury that is less than six members violates Ballew’s constitutional rights to have a trial that is protected under the sixth and fourteenth amendment, in particular for a non-petty criminal offense.  The court concluded and decided by overturning his case with a nine for and zero for against vote, on the “right to trial by jury.”  The judges justification for their decision believed that the high risk of jury errors are increased with smaller jurors or the lack of the community using commons sense to the facts (American Bar Association, 1978).

The historical background to the right to a twelve (12)-person jury under the sixth amendment to the constitution, began in the 1300’s.  Since that time, the court had taken the position that a criminal case required twelve (12) members, as a “historical accident.”  However, the courts during 1898, felt that having a twelve (12)-person jury or less was not a constitutional requirement. 

Take, for example, the conviction of Williams V. Florida in 1970, where he was found guilty by a six (6)-member jury for robbery.  The court thought it over and reconsidered that it was alright to use a six (6) member jury after all to convict Williams on account that the Sixth Amendment really didn’t stipulate at all, the requirement about jury size, despite the fact, that a twelve (12) member jury was always used throughout the years in America.  Therefore, the courts concluded, that using a six (6)-member jury, would fulfill the framers concerns and expectation of the functions of a twelve (12)-member jury.

 The court held its decision that a using a six (6) member jury satisfies the requirement of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments (FindLaw, 2014).  Although, the court held its decision on a six-jury panel as being sufficient for its function, other justices such as Justice Harlan were not so sure of it and criticized its reasoning.  Asking where the court should draw the line in reducing jury size, and wondered if a three (3) member jury would suffice when seeking unanimous votes.  The court’s conclusion in the Williams v Florida has the right to a unanimous jury verdict (Findlaw, 2014).

Another example, showing where the Supreme Court upheld a state law constitutionality, was in the case of Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana in 1972, where they actually allowed these defendants to be tried and convicted by a jury that had less than unanimous votes such as, 10 to 2 in the Oregon v. Apodaca case, and a conviction with votes such as, 9 to 3, in the Louisiana v. Johnson to be permitted (Findlaw, 2014).  The courts adopted the same conclusion behind the reasoning in the William v. Florida, the right to a unanimous verdict as being the standard expectation when the Bill of Rights was adopted.  Although, the first Congress rejected the language of making the unanimity requirement detail. 

However, it was the opinion of Justice Blackmun who had a constitutional problem with votes such as, 8 to 4 or even with 7 to 5 verdicts.  Therefore, other dissenting justices argued and concurred that the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is unconstitutionally weakened by allowing these state laws to permit non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases to occur (Findlaw, 2014).  In 1979, in the case of Burch v. Louisiana, was a final attempt made by the Supreme Court in dealing with the issues of Jury size and unanimity, found that Louisiana’s laws in allowing 5 to 1 votes by a six-person jury criminal convictions to occur, did indeed violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right along with the Fourteenth Amendment right trial by a jury as small as six (Findlaw, 2014).

 Data suggested that by having smaller juries could affect effective group deliberation.  The Supreme Court believes that due to having smaller juries can cause a “hung jury,” because there were not enough members to offset a critical solution to the problem.  Due to reduction in size, jurors might have difficulty remembering important pieces of evidence or let alone, recall the argument in the case versus having twelve (12) members to help remember important facts in the case, which can provide a more accurate result.  Data also showed when comparing group decision-making, that groups perform better and counterbalances any prejudices of individuals (Findlaw, 2014). 

The role of a jury, as defined by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is the right to be tried by an impartial jury, and to have “representative of a cross-section of the community.  This is where the jurors considers the evidence that’s against the defendant to then make a decision on whether the accused is guilty or not of their crimes without a reasonable doubt to occur, and therefore, all twelve (12) jurors must reach a unanimous verdict (Findlaw, 2014). 

The fundamental protection that’s available to a defendant under the Fourth Amendment is the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, businesses, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, that’s supported by oath, or by affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Findlaw.2014).  In other words, it protects the fundamental liberty of the right to “privacy and freedom from random governed invasions” (Findlaw, 2014). 

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that does not allow unreasonable search and seizures to one’s homes, businesses, or person, because in order to permit a search and seizure, law enforcement officers must have an arrest warrant, or a valid search warrant to do so (Findlaw, 2014).  The American system of jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment refers to the individual’s “right to privacy” and the inadequate importance on responsible police behavior (Citron, 2007). 

For example, a law enforcement officer cannot pat you down, detain, or restrain you without probable cause, or proof.  There are no guarantees against all search and seizures, just those that are considered unreasonable.  In addition, the purpose of the American system of jurisprudence is to prevent any jurors from being prejudiced or biased.  Their responsibility is to focus on the evidence and facts that are being presented by the prosecution and the defense attorney.  In regards to the right to a twelve-person jury, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about jury size that applies to the Six Amendment, where it stipulates that having a six-member jury is sufficient. 

Phoebe C. Ellsworth, a Law professor at the University of Michigan had a quote stating, “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.”  This quote did not provide enough information to establish whether to support or oppose it.

In conclusion, in the Ballew v. Georgia, a historical landmark case that was tried by the Supreme Court, where a five-member jury in Georgia convicted the petitioner, Mr. Ballew, believed that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.  The Supreme Court raised questions regarding whether having a five-member jury was too small for a cross-section of the community.  Although, the Bill of Rights did not clearly stipulate that it was a “constitutional requirement” in having a twelve-member jury in trying a case, be it criminal or non-criminal, concerned the court.  In light of this, the Supreme Court felt and believed that by using smaller juries in criminal and non-petty trials, were more likely to forget important pieces of evidence or argument, and therefore, believes that a high risk of jury errors are increased on account of it. 

Reference

American Bar Association Journal, (1978). “Five Man Jury Violates Sixth Amendment,

        Vol.64 issue (5), p (741).

Champion, D.J., Hartley, R. D., Rabe, G. A. (2012). Criminal courts: Structure, Process, and  

        Issues. (3rd ed.). p (130-131).

Citron, E. F. (2007). The Yale Law Journal. “Right and Responsibility in Fourth Amendment

        Jurisprudence: The Problem with Pretext

Findlaw Cases and Codes.(2014). Retrieved from http://www.laws.findlaw.com/us/435/223.html