Case Brief - Duncan v Louisiana

CASE BRIEF | Duncan v. Louisiana Statement of the facts In 1966, the Appellant, Mr Gary Duncan, was charged with simply battery, a misdemeanour under Louisiana law, punishable by a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and $300 fine. Duncan requested a jury trial but was denied. The trial judge held that the elements of simple battery were proven and Duncan was convicted and sentenced to 60 days in prison and a fine of $150. Procedural History Duncan sought a review in the Louisiana Supreme Court claiming that the denial of a trial was a violation of his sixth amendment rights. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied certiorari. Duncan appealed to the Supreme Court of the US contending that that the sixth amendment right of trial by jury was applicable to the states through the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment. Issue Whether the sixth amendment right to a trial by jury applied to state proceedings through the fourteenth amendment. Court Holding Under the fourteenth amendment, an individual has a right to a jury trial in state proceedings when they would have otherwise been entitled to a jury trial in federal court under the sixth amendment. The penalty for a particular crime is of relevance in determining whether it is a serious one subject to the mandates of the sixth amendment. Rule of law The sixth amendment right to trial by jury applied to the State of Louisiana in criminal proceedings. Court Reasoning The majority held that the test for whether a bill of rights right is incorporated to the states by the fourteenth amendment is whether that right is a “fundamental” right. Court held that the right to trial by jury is fundamental to defendants in criminal proceedings, in order to prevent oppression by the government and ensure fairness. It held that a jury trial provides a safeguard against the corrupt or prosecutor or biased judge and provided a check against power. It held that one of the most basic characteristics of a common law system was trial by jury. Therefore, trial by jury was a fundamental right and “must be respected by the States”. While the court extended the right to trial by jury to the states, it did not specifically clarify what type of cases the right will be required. While it considered that a crime punishable by two years in prison was a serious crime, it did not provide an exact guideline, stating that it “need not settle in this case the exact location of the line between petty offenses and serious crimes”. The court did however make reference to the federal system which states that petty offences are those defined as punishable by no more than 6 months in prison and a $500 fine1. In doing so, it implied that an offences that are punishable by jail term of a 6 months or more could not be tried without a jury. Concurring Reasoning Justices Black and Douglas agreed with the Justice White. In their concurring judgement, they stated that the “privileges and immunities” clause of the fourteenth amendment served to completely incorporate the Bill of Rights because “what more precious privilege can there be that the privilege to claim the protections of our great Bill of Rights.” Dissenting Reasoning Justices Harlan and Stewart took the view that the fourteenth amendment only requires that state procedures be “fundamentally fair” in all respects, and that requirement does not mean that jury trials are required in all criminal cases. Personal Impressions Duncan v. Louisiana set the precedent that all states must permit a criminal defendant the right to have a trial by jury. This is a fundamental right under the Constitution and was appropriately upheld to apply to state prosecutions. It is, however, unfortunate that Mr Duncan was not permitted a re-trial by jury as it was subsequently held that the ruling could not apply retrospectively. 1 See: Callan v Wilson (1888); District of Columbia v Colts (1930), and Schick v United States (1904). In 1930 Congress also passed a law defining a petty offence as an offence not involving a penalty greater than jail for a period of 6 months or a fine of not more than $500.00 or both. In Columbia v Clawans (1937), the Supreme Court confirmed that “any misdemeanour, the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of 6 months or a fine of not more than $500.00 or both is a petty offence.”