Term Paper on "Duncan v. Louisiana"

Term Paper 5 pages (1806 words) Sources: 1+

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Duncan v. Louisiana

The case known as Duncan v. Louisiana was decided in the United States Supreme Court in 1968. It was a precedent-setting case that changed the way courts operated in many of the 50 states. The individual in this case was Gary Duncan, an African-American who was convicted of simple battery in Louisiana (Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court) in 1966. Duncan was 19 years old when he was tried. The specifics of the case will be reviewed in detail later in this paper, but the background is relevant and will be presented first.

Should an individual who commits a crime be allowed a jury trial? And what are the circumstances under which a court of law can deny an accused person a jury trial? These are some of the questions that were raised in Duncan v. Louisiana. The historical overview of Duncan v. Louisiana involves several court cases, among them District of Columbia v. Clawans (1937) and Singer v. United States (1965).

In the Clawans case, an individual was arrested for selling second-hand property without the proper license. In the District of Columbia this offense was punishable by a fine of not more than $300 - or, alternatively, of imprisonment of not more than 90 days. It was classified as a "petty offense," according to http://supreme.justia.com.Accordingto the U.S. Constitution, at the time it was adopted by the U.S., a trial without a jury for petty crimes was the norm. And at that time, when a person was tried by a judge (and not a jury), he was not entitled to an appeal, if the ruling was guilty. Therein lies the issue in District of Columbia v. Clawans. Ms. Clawans, in this case, was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 for her misdeeds, and when she was being arraigned she demanded a trial by jury.

That demand was denied, but the case was sent from a lower court to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia "by writ of error to review the denial of the respondent's request for a jury trial" (www.caselaw.In.findlaw.com).Alongwith Ms. Clawans' demand for a jury trial the Appeals court also gave consideration to other rulings, including the fact that she claimed she was being denied a fair trial, which would be a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The interesting twist to her case was that under the Code of the District of Columbia [300 U.S. 617, 624] (1929) Tit. 18, 165, the prosecution can order a jury trial in every case where the accused "would not by force of the Constitution of the United States be entitled to a trial by jury..." But it gets confusing after that. Trials shall be without a jury, the District of Columbia statutes declare, unless the case results in a fine of "more than $300" or imprisonment of "more than 90 days."

So, since Clawans was only fined $300 and/or given a jail sentence of just 90 days, she could not demand a jury trial, according to the District of Columbia. But wait, the U.S. Constitution (Article 3, section 2, clause 3) says that "...The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury." And the Sixth amendment states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion was delivered by Justice Stone, who wrote at great length about the pros and cons of the case; he had a problem accepting the fact that a petty offense such as Clawans was engaged in can be termed a "major crime" but he also had a problem with how long this case had been dragged out and he knew that fairness must be achieved in some manner. So, he stated that "the respondent's demand for a jury trial was rightly denied" but he insisted that "...a new trial" must be granted. Not because he was re-interpreting the Constitution, but because in her first trial, the judge refused to allow cross-examination by the defendant. In other words, a new jury trial was ordered because the "sole evidence of the acts of the respondent" was the testimony of "five prosecution witnesses." She was denied the chance to cross-examine in that original local trial, and hence, got a new trial, albeit without a jury, thanks to the Supreme Court.

In Singer v. United States, the defendant (petitioner) was involved in a federal criminal mail fraud case (30 infractions), far more serious than petty selling used items, e.g., Clawans. But Singer demanded a trial by a judge. The Court ruled that the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(a) "...sets forth a reasonable procedure governing proffered waivers of jury trials...the defendant's only constitutional right...is to an impartial trial by jury" (http://supreme.justia.com).ChiefJustice Earl Warren, who delivered the opinion of the Court, reminded the accused that the only way the defendant would be able to avoid a jury trial in a serious case like this is to waive a jury trial "with the approval of the court and the consent of the government."

Singer's lawyers insisted that he had a right to a non-jury trial whether the court agreed or not. The opinion of the Court was lengthy and complicated in its explanation, using past cases as examples, as courts always do. Indeed, Justice Warren wrote "We find it difficult to understand how the petitioner can submit the bald proposition that to compel a defendant in a criminal case to undergo a jury trial against his will is contrary to his right to a fair trial or to due process." Warren's opinion went on to recognize that some states have "...adopted a variety of procedures relating to the waiver of jury trials in state criminal cases." He mentions some examples, and then turns to the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." And with that, the Chief Justice affirmed and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had denied Singer's demand for a trial by a judge alone.

With those two cases as background and perspective - one in which the accused insisted on a jury trial (and was given a new trial by a judge but no jury) and another in which the accused demanded a trial by a single judge (but lost his appeal) - the matter of Duncan v. Louisiana is a very interesting case.

This case was brought before a court initially because Duncan got into an argument with some Caucasian males, and he was African-American. Whenever there are disagreements between blacks and whites, the matter always takes on more emotion and more press coverage. In this matter, Duncan was driving on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish, in Louisiana, when he saw two younger cousins having a conversation next to the road with four white boys. He was aware that there had been some racial tension at the school where his cousins attended. He stopped his car and approached the white boys. In the trial, there was conflicting testimony regarding what really happened.

Duncan had asked for a trial by jury, but in Louisiana the only time you can get a trial by jury is if capital punishment or "imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed" as punishment, according to http://www.law.umkc.edu.Sohe was denied a jury trial. Duncan's testimony was that he touched one of the boys before getting into his car to leave. The white boys insisted that he slapped one of them. It was white vs. black and in the Jim Crow south, which was very much a reality in the 1960s; whites almost always got the best of things. Duncan was convicted of simple battery, and was sentenced to 60 days in jail and $150 fine. He appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, saying the denial of a jury trial "violated rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution," but the High Court of Louisiana found no "error of law" in the lower court ruling.

His lawyers took the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Court found that Louisiana had denied him his right to a trial by jury. Even though he was only sentenced to 60 days in jail, the crime for which he was sentenced called for up to 2 years in prison. So, the High Court ruled that even though this was a state trial, the Fourteenth Amendment "guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases" (and a crime punishable of up to 2 years is a serious "criminal" case) and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution assures that such a crime is serious at the federal level.

The reason this case is considered a "landmark" case because it reflects a pivotal movement on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court to make the states comply with the amendments… READ MORE

How to Reference "Duncan v. Louisiana" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Duncan v. Louisiana Term Paper

Duncan v Louisiana 1968

The right to due process of law is a constitutional right that has been defended and debated over the years to come up with a reasonable… read more

Term Paper 5 pages (1654 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Duncan Industries Research Proposal

Duncan Industries

Mark Duncan wants to continue to grow his company, and has a number of options on the table to do this. Duncan Industries has substantial growth prospects in… read more

Research Proposal 5 pages (1521 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Business / Corporations / E-commerce

---

Johnson v. Eisentrager 339 U.S. 763 (1950) Case Study

Johnson v. Eisentrager 339 U.S. 763 (1950).

Retrieved October 5, 2011 from Findlaw website: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/339/763.html

Facts: On May 8, 1945 Germany engaged in an unconditional surrender, which obligated the forces… read more

Case Study 5 pages (2000 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Term Paper

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Separate and not equal: Homer Plessy, the first 'Rosa Parks'

On June 7, 1892, a thirty-year-old shoemaker by the name of Homer Plessy engaged in an… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (662 words) Sources: 2 Topic: African-American / Black Studies

---

Prison Duncan Argues That the Very Metaphors Essay

Prison

Duncan argues that the very metaphors we employ in the criminal / social justice / penal system limit: (1) our understanding of deviants, and (2) possibilities of reform. Explain… read more

Essay 4 pages (1598 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>