Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 17, 1968
Decided December 21, 1968
Full case name Gary Duncan v. State of Louisiana Citations 391 U.S. 145 (more)
88 S. Ct. 1444; 20 L. Ed. 2d 491; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1631; 45 Ohio Op. 2d 198
Prior history Defendant convicted, Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana; cert. denied, 195 So. 2d 142 (La. 1967) Subsequent history Rehearing denied, 392 U.S. 947 (1968) Holding A crime carrying a 2-year sentence is sufficiently serious to require the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth. The US Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Court membershipChief Justice
Case opinions Majority White, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall Concurrence Black, joined by Douglas Concurrence Fortas Dissent Harlan, joined by Stewart Laws applied U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV
Background of the case
In October, 1966, Gary Duncan, a 19-year old African-American, was driving down a Louisiana highway when he noticed his two cousins with a group of white youths on the side of the road. He became concerned because his cousins had reported occurrences of “racial incidents” at the recently de-segregated school. He pulled over the car, stepped out, and asked his cousins to get in the car. The white youths testified that Duncan slapped one of them at this point, while Duncan and his cousins denied it. Duncan was arrested and ultimately charged with simple battery. As it is punishable by no more than two years, simple battery is a misdemeanor under Louisiana law and therefore not subject to trial by jury. Duncan was convicted and received a 60 day prison sentence and a fine of $150. He appealed on the grounds that the state had violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing his right to a jury trial. The Court accepted the case under its appellate jurisdiction from the Louisiana State Supreme Court.
Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to jury trial in state prosecutions where sentences as long as two years may be imposed?
Justice White noted that the right to a jury trial for criminal offenses is a deeply enshrined value in both the British and American legal traditions. Despite its particular flaws, he said, its importance was widely recognized and meets the test of being "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." Thus, right to a jury trial in criminal cases is within the 14th Amendment, and therefore is applicable to the states.
The question for the court was whether an offense subject to two years imprisonment is a “serious offense.” The majority noted that at the time of ratification, crimes punishable by more than six months imprisonment were typically subject to jury trial. Furthermore, both federal law and forty-nine states recognized that a crime carrying a sentence of over one year necessitated a jury trial. The Court found that the Louisiana law was out of sync with both the historical and current standards of the justice system and was therefore ruled unconstitutional.
Justice Black, concurring: Black argues for total incorporation, holding that all amendments in the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. He cites Congressional records from the ratification of the amendment to support his position. He holds that anything less than total incorporation would leave the enforcement of these rights to the whims of the judiciary.
Justice Fortas, concurring: Though it is obvious that the right to jury trial is fundamental for serious offences, it is not the court’s role to dictate to the states what specific form such a jury trial should take. The states should be free to develop their own rules regarding the exercise of a jury trial and not be held accountable to some historical or federal standard.
Justice Harlan, dissenting:
The States have always borne primary responsibility for operating the machinery of criminal justice within their borders, and adapting it to their particular circumstances. In exercising this responsibility, each State is compelled to conform its procedures to the requirements of the Federal Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that those procedures be fundamentally fair in all respects. It does not, in my view, impose or encourage nationwide uniformity for its own sake; it does not command adherence to forms that happen to be old; and it does not impose on the States the rules that may be in force in the federal courts except where such rules are also found to be essential to basic fairness.
Summary of the Court's decision
By a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, arguing that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. The Court maintained the common-law exception for "petty crimes", which are defined as those punishable by a maximum of a $500 fine and six months in prison. In such cases, states are not obligated to provide jury trials.
- ^ "'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seems to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States." Curtis, Michael Kent (1994) . No State Shall Abridge (Second printing in paperback ed.). Duke University Press. p. 202. ISBN 0-8223-0599-2.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Duncan Canal (Louisiana) — Duncan Canal, from Kenner side The Duncan Canal, also known as the West Return Canal, is a canal in Louisiana, running along a sizable portion of the boundary between Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The primary… … Wikipedia
Duncan Canal, Louisiana — The Duncan Canal, also known as the West Return Canal, is a canal in Louisiana, running along a sizable portion of the boundary between Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The primary purpose of the canal is drainage; a … Wikipedia
Duncan Canal — may refer to: Duncan Canal (Louisiana), the West Return Canal outside of New Orleans Duncan Canal (Alaska), an inland waterway in the Alexander Archipelago of Alaska s panhandle 56°42′06″N 133°12′24″W / 56.7017°N 133 … Wikipedia
Duncan F. Kenner — Duncan Farrar Kenner (Feb. 11, 1813 – July 3, 1887) was a Louisiana politician, lawyer, and diplomat for the Confederate States of America. Biography Born in New Orleans, Kenner became a wealthy sugar planter. He used scientific techniques and… … Wikipedia
Duncan Farrar Kenner — (* 11. Februar 1813 in New Orleans, Louisiana; † 3. Juli 1887 ebenda) war ein US amerikanischer, sowie ein konföderierter Politiker aus dem Bundesstaat Louisiana. Ferner war er Mitglied des konföderierten Kongresses. Kenner war 1836 Mitglied des… … Deutsch Wikipedia
Duncan and Brady — Roud #4177 Laws L19 Written by Traditional Published 1925 Language English Form Ballad, Murder ballad Original artist Wilmer Watts his Lonely Eagles (1929) … Wikipedia
Duncan Farrar Kenner — (February 11, 1813 ndash; July 3, 1887) was a Louisiana and Confederate politician who served in the Confederate States Congress during the American Civil War. Kenner was born in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and served in the state legislature in… … Wikipedia
Duncan P. Ferguson — (* 1. Januar 1901 in Shanghai; † 29. April 1974 in Santa Monica) war ein US amerikanischer Bildhauer. Fergusons Trotzki Büste (Vordergrund) im Museum Casa de León Trotsky, Mexiko Ferguson war ein Sohn des Theologen und Universitätsgründers John… … Deutsch Wikipedia
Duncan's Creek Presbyterian Church — U.S. National Register of Historic Places … Wikipedia
Duncan MacLeod Timeline:1892-1991 — Contents 1 Events 2 Unknown Events 3 See also Events Year Event 1905 Duncan visits his friend greengrocer Giuseppe in New York City … Wikipedia