Ham v. South Carolina
409 U.S. 524 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state trial judge to permit a defendant to have potential jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias when requested, especially when racial issues are inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial. However, this constitutional requirement does not extend to all potential sources of prejudice, such as a defendant's physical appearance.
Facts:
- Gene Ham, the petitioner, was a young, Black man who wore a beard.
- Ham was well known in his community in Florence County, South Carolina, for his civil rights activism with organizations like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
- Ham was charged under state law with possession of marihuana.
- Ham's defense theory was that law enforcement officers had framed him on the drug charge because of his civil rights activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Gene Ham was charged with possession of marihuana in a South Carolina state trial court.
- During jury selection (voir dire), Ham's counsel requested that the trial judge ask prospective jurors four specific questions concerning potential racial prejudice, prejudice against beards, and pretrial publicity.
- The trial judge refused to ask Ham's proposed questions, instead asking three general statutory questions about bias, prejudice, or impartiality.
- A jury convicted Ham of the charge.
- Ham appealed his conviction to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which is the state's highest court.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in a divided decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the limited question of whether the trial judge's refusal to ask the requested questions on voir dire violated Ham's constitutional rights.
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 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state trial judge, upon a defendant's request, to question prospective jurors on voir dire about potential racial prejudice and prejudice against a defendant's physical appearance (a beard)?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Yes, as to racial prejudice; No, as to prejudice against beards. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to interrogate jurors on the subject of racial prejudice when requested by a defendant in a case with racial overtones. This requirement stems from the 'essential demands of fairness' and the principal purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit racial discrimination. However, while a trial judge has broad discretion in conducting voir dire, the refusal to inquire about particular bias against beards, after making general inquiries about bias, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Unlike racial prejudice, which has a unique constitutional stature based on history and precedent, possible prejudice against beards is one of many potential biases that does not constitutionally mandate a specific inquiry.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, as to racial prejudice; No, the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to ask about prejudice against the defendant's beard. While concurring that an inquiry into racial prejudice was constitutionally compelled, it was an abuse of discretion to preclude inquiry into jurors' prejudice against hair growth. Such prejudices are of a 'serious character,' as hair growth is symbolic to many of rebellion and an undesirable lifestyle, which could prevent a defendant, especially one accused of a drug crime, from receiving a fair trial. Denying a defendant the right to examine this aspect of a juror's personality denies him an effective means of voir dire.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes, as to racial prejudice; No, the judge's refusal to ask about prejudice against beards was an abuse of discretion that violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The constitutional right to an impartial jury protects against all forms of prejudice, not just certain classes like race. It makes little difference to a defendant whether the jury has prejudged him because of skin color or hair length; either way, he is deprived of a fair trial. The right to challenge jurors is meaningless without the right to ask relevant questions on voir dire. Given the minimal time required and the obvious relevance of the questions, the judge's absolute ban on these inquiries was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial includes a right to have prospective jurors questioned about racial bias, at least when requested by the defendant and when race is a significant factor in the case. However, the Court drew a line, refusing to extend this constitutional requirement to other potential biases like those based on physical appearance. This creates a hierarchy of prejudices under constitutional law, elevating race to a special status due to its historical context, while leaving inquiries into other biases within the broad discretion of the trial judge. The decision set a precedent that would be refined in later cases determining when 'special circumstances' necessitate specific voir dire questions beyond race.
Unlock the full brief for Ham v. South Carolina