Burch v. Louisiana
441 U.S. 130, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 87, 60 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction in a state criminal trial for a nonpetty offense by a non-unanimous six-person jury violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a trial by jury. When a jury is reduced to the constitutional minimum size of six, unanimity is required to preserve the substance of the jury trial right.
Facts:
- An individual, Burch, and his company, Wrestle, Inc., were jointly charged in Louisiana with two counts of exhibiting obscene motion pictures.
- The potential punishment for this offense included imprisonment for more than six months, classifying it as a 'nonpetty' offense requiring a jury trial.
- Under Louisiana law, such cases were tried before a six-person jury.
- The law stipulated that only five of the six jurors needed to concur to render a verdict.
- At trial, a six-person jury heard the case against both Burch and Wrestle, Inc.
- The jury voted unanimously (6-0) to convict Wrestle, Inc.
- The jury voted 5-1 to convict Burch.
Procedural Posture:
- Burch and Wrestle, Inc. were charged with obscenity in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a trial, a six-person jury returned guilty verdicts against both petitioners.
- Burch and Wrestle, Inc. appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing that Louisiana's law permitting non-unanimous six-person jury verdicts violated the Constitution. Burch and Wrestle, Inc. were the appellants, and the State of Louisiana was the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the convictions, holding that the state's jury system was constitutional.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law permitting a criminal conviction for a nonpetty offense by a non-unanimous six-person jury violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a trial by jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Yes, a state law permitting a criminal conviction for a nonpetty offense by a non-unanimous six-person jury violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a trial by jury. The court's precedents have established that a jury may be as small as six members (Williams v. Florida) and that a 12-person jury's verdict need not be unanimous (Apodaca v. Oregon), but this case lies at the intersection of those two principles. The constitutional protections afforded by a jury, such as promoting group deliberation and ensuring a fair cross-section of the community, are already strained when the jury size is reduced to the minimum of six. Removing the requirement of unanimity from this small group further undermines these protections to an unconstitutional degree. The same concerns that led the Court in Ballew v. Georgia to prohibit five-member juries justify requiring unanimity for six-member juries. The state's interest in judicial efficiency cannot outweigh this significant threat to the substance of the jury trial right.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes, the conviction by a non-unanimous six-person jury violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Although he has different views on the underlying obscenity laws, he believes he must confine his decision to the question presented in the petition for certiorari. Because he agrees with the majority's resolution of that specific question regarding jury unanimity and size, he joins the Court's opinion.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, petitioner Burch's conviction by a non-unanimous jury verdict must be reversed as a violation of his constitutional right to a jury trial. However, the dissent disagrees with the majority's decision to affirm Wrestle, Inc.'s conviction and to allow a retrial for Burch. The underlying Louisiana obscenity statute is, in this view, facially unconstitutional and overbroad. Therefore, neither petitioner could be constitutionally convicted under it, and the convictions of both should be reversed outright without the possibility of a retrial.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial bright-line rule at the intersection of jury size and unanimity, clarifying the constitutional floor for jury trials. While prior cases allowed states to independently reduce jury size (to six) or eliminate unanimity (for twelve-person juries), Burch v. Louisiana holds that these two cost-saving measures cannot be combined. The ruling prevents states from further eroding the traditional features of a jury trial by establishing that if a state opts for the constitutional minimum jury size, it must retain the safeguard of unanimity. This reinforces the idea that the jury's functions—promoting deliberation, preventing oppression, and ensuring minority viewpoints are heard—depend on an interplay between its size and voting rules, and a reduction in one requires reinforcement from the other.
