Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

In October 1966, Gary Duncan, a 19-year-old African American, was driving along a Louisiana highway when he observed his younger cousins, who were African American, in the company of four white youths. Given the racial tensions following the recent desegregation of schools, Duncan was concerned for his cousins' safety. He stopped, encouraged his cousins to enter his car, and, according to some accounts, may have touched one of the white youths on the elbow. The white youths alleged that Duncan slapped one of them, leading to his arrest and subsequent charge of simple battery.

Under Louisiana law at the time, simple battery was classified as a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and a $300 fine. Despite the potential severity of the punishment, Louisiana's constitution permitted jury trials only in cases where capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor could be imposed. Consequently, Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied. He was tried before a judge, found guilty, and sentenced to 60 days in prison and a $150 fine.

Legal Issue

The central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to a jury trial in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice and, therefore, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether denying Duncan a jury trial for a crime punishable by up to two years' imprisonment violated his constitutional rights.

Supreme Court Decision

On May 20, 1968, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled in favor of Duncan. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, held that the right to a jury trial is fundamental to the American justice system and is therefore incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that juries serve as a vital safeguard against potential governmental oppression, ensuring that defendants are judged by a representative cross-section of the community.

The Court distinguished between "serious" and "petty" offenses, noting that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial for serious offenses. While the Constitution does not explicitly define these terms, the Court referenced historical and contemporary standards, concluding that crimes punishable by more than six months' imprisonment are considered serious. Since Duncan's charge carried a potential two-year sentence, it qualified as a serious offense, entitling him to a jury trial.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Hugo Black, in his concurrence, advocated for the total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, asserting that all its protections are fundamental and should apply uniformly. Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting, contended that the majority's decision imposed federal standards on states without sufficient justification, potentially undermining state autonomy in administering justice.

Implications for Jury Nullification

While Duncan v. Louisiana primarily addressed the right to a jury trial, it has implications for the concept of jury nullification—the ability of jurors to acquit defendants despite evidence of guilt if they believe the law is unjust or improperly applied. By affirming the fundamental role of juries in the criminal justice system, the decision implicitly acknowledges the jury's power to act as a check on governmental authority. This reinforces the idea that juries can serve as the conscience of the community, potentially exercising nullification in cases where strict application of the law would result in injustice.

Duncan v. Louisiana stands as a landmark decision in American constitutional law, reinforcing the right to a jury trial in serious criminal cases and ensuring that this protection extends to defendants in state courts. The ruling underscores the importance of juries as a fundamental component of the justice system, serving both as fact-finders and as a safeguard against potential governmental overreach. By incorporating the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court affirmed the essential role of juries in upholding individual liberties and maintaining public confidence in the legal process.

The Power of the Twelve examines the critical role of juries in the American legal system. It highlights how a group of twelve ordinary citizens can challenge unjust laws and prosecutorial decisions through jury nullification. By empowering individuals to exercise collective judgment, the book emphasizes the jury's importance in ensuring justice, protecting individual rights, and balancing governmental power.

Through its examination of jury dynamics, 'The Power of the Twelve' reveals how jurors wield significant influence in the American legal system by exercising jury nullification and collective judgment. The book emphasizes the crucial role of ordinary citizens in challenging unjust laws, enhancing transparency in legal proceedings, and ensuring that justice is administered fairly. These actions are viewed as essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal process and safeguarding individual rights against potential governmental overreach.

Articles

The Verdict Heard ‘Round the World: Jury Nullification in the O.J. Simpson Trial

The 1995 trial of O.J. Simpson, charged with the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, captivated the nation and exposed deep divisions in American society. Despite substantial evidence against Simpson, the jury acquitted him after a trial lasting over eight months. Many viewed the verdict as an act of jury nullification, influenced by broader social issues such as racial tensions, police misconduct, and systemic inequality.

Central to the defense's case was the argument that Simpson was the victim of a corrupt and racist Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). High-profile incidents like the Rodney King beating and the LAPD’s history of racial bias resonated with the predominantly Black jury, overshadowing the prosecution’s evidence. The jury’s decision was seen by some as a statement against racial injustice in the legal system, while others criticized it as a miscarriage of justice.

The Simpson trial highlighted the power of juries to deliver verdicts reflecting societal tensions rather than strict legal interpretations. While controversial, the case underscored the complex interplay between law, public sentiment, and social context. It remains a landmark example of how juries can act as agents of change—or as flash points for public debate—within the justice system.

Cheers to Defiance: Jury Nullification and Prohibition’s Legal Rebellion

During the Prohibition era (1920–1933), the United States attempted to enforce a nationwide ban on alcohol through the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. This legislation aimed to eliminate alcohol consumption and its societal ills but faced widespread resistance. Jurors, reflecting public sentiment, often nullified Prohibition laws by refusing to convict defendants accused of alcohol-related offenses.

Notable cases included those of bootleggers, speakeasy operators, and even ordinary citizens charged with illegal possession. In urban centers like Chicago and New York, jury nullification became a quiet yet powerful form of protest against the perceived overreach of the federal government. Juries openly sympathized with defendants, considering the laws both impractical and unjust.

This widespread jury nullification undermined the enforcement of Prohibition, contributing to its eventual repeal in 1933 through the 21st Amendment. The era serves as a vivid example of how public opinion, reflected in jury decisions, can challenge and ultimately overturn laws that lack societal support. Prohibition’s collapse demonstrated the critical role of jurors in shaping legal and social norms, highlighting jury nullification as a mechanism for resisting unpopular or unjust legislation.

Cannabis and Conscience: Jury Nullification in Marijuana Cases

As societal attitudes toward marijuana shifted in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, jury nullification emerged as a quiet yet powerful form of resistance against outdated cannabis laws. Many individuals faced harsh penalties for possession, cultivation, or distribution, even as public support for legalization grew. In several notable cases, juries refused to convict defendants, reflecting their belief that such laws were unjust.

One such case occurred in the 1990s in California, where a man was charged with cultivating marijuana for medical use. Despite evidence of illegal cultivation, the jury acquitted him, citing compassion for his medical needs. Similar acquittals were reported in states where public opinion clashed with strict anti-cannabis statutes, often influenced by the burgeoning medical marijuana movement.

Jury nullification in marijuana cases highlighted the disconnect between evolving public values and rigid legal frameworks. By refusing to convict, jurors effectively challenged laws that criminalized behaviors increasingly seen as benign or beneficial. These acts of defiance contributed to broader movements for reform, culminating in widespread legalization and decriminalization efforts across the United States. The history of cannabis-related jury nullification underscores the role of ordinary citizens in driving social and legal change through the judicial process.

Breaking the Chains of Injustice: Jury Nullification and the Fugitive Slave Act

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 compelled citizens and officials in free states to assist in the capture and return of escaped enslaved individuals. Resistance to the Act grew as abolitionists and sympathizers viewed it as an affront to human dignity and freedom. Northern juries played a critical role in defying this federal mandate through acts of jury nullification, refusing to convict individuals accused of violating the law.

Notable cases include the 1851 trial of William “Jerry” Henry, an escaped enslaved man in Syracuse, New York. When Jerry was arrested under the Act, local abolitionists orchestrated a daring rescue, and despite clear violations of the law, local juries acquitted participants. Similarly, in Boston, Shadrach Minkins, another fugitive, was freed by activists. Northern juries repeatedly delivered verdicts reflecting moral opposition to slavery, not adherence to the law.

These acts of defiance were pivotal in galvanizing the abolitionist movement, undermining the Fugitive Slave Act's enforcement, and intensifying sectional tensions leading to the Civil War. The use of jury nullification during this period demonstrated the power of local communities to resist unjust laws and shaped the broader struggle for justice and human rights in America.