Johnson v. Louisiana
406 U.S. 356 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state criminal conviction rendered by a less-than-unanimous jury does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Frank Johnson was identified from photographs by the victim of an armed robbery.
- Johnson was subsequently identified in a lineup by the victim of a second, separate armed robbery.
- Johnson was arrested at his home without a warrant.
- Johnson was charged and tried in Louisiana for the second armed robbery, a crime for which the punishment was necessarily at hard labor.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Johnson was tried by a 12-man jury in a Louisiana state court for armed robbery.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict by a vote of nine to three.
- Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing that the provisions allowing for a non-unanimous verdict were unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the conviction, rejecting Johnson's constitutional claims.
- Johnson then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
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 that allows for a criminal conviction by a less-than-unanimous jury verdict for certain non-capital felonies violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No, a state law allowing for a conviction by a less-than-unanimous jury verdict for certain felonies does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has never held jury unanimity to be a requisite of due process, and the disagreement of three jurors does not in itself establish the existence of reasonable doubt. A hung jury in a system requiring unanimity results in a retrial, not an acquittal, which demonstrates that a lack of unanimity is not constitutionally equivalent to a failure of proof by the State. Furthermore, Louisiana's statutory scheme, which requires different levels of jury agreement based on the severity of the crime, serves the rational purpose of facilitating the administration of justice while increasing the State's burden for more serious offenses, and thus does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Concurrence - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. While concurring with the Court's judgment that Louisiana's split-verdict system is not constitutionally offensive, the system is not necessarily wise as a matter of legislative policy. The holding is limited to situations where a 'substantial majority' of the jury is convinced, such as the 9-3 verdict here, and a less substantial majority, like 7-5, would present a more difficult constitutional question.
Concurrence - Mr. Justice Powell
No. While the Sixth Amendment, based on historical precedent, requires a unanimous verdict in federal criminal trials, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose this requirement on the states. The concept of due process only incorporates rights that are fundamental to a fair trial, and unanimity is not essential to the jury's core function of safeguarding against arbitrary law enforcement. States should be free to experiment with their own adjudicatory processes, and Oregon's less-than-unanimous verdict provision is a rational choice that does not undermine the fundamental role of the jury.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, this procedure violates the accused's constitutional rights. The requirement of a unanimous jury is as fundamental to American justice as the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bill of Rights should apply to the states with the same force as it does to the federal government; creating a 'watered-down' version for the states is improper. Nonunanimous verdicts diminish the reliability of the jury by cutting deliberation short once a majority is reached, preventing the minority from potentially persuading the majority and creating a system that statistically favors the prosecution.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. When verdicts do not need to be unanimous, the voices of jurors representing minority groups can be ignored, effectively silencing them. This undermines the constitutional requirement that juries be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The right of all groups to participate in the criminal process means the right to have their voices heard and considered, a right which only a unanimous verdict can vindicate.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment alone requires a unanimous jury verdict in state criminal cases. The rule of unanimity is the only way to ensure that the participation of all citizens on a jury is meaningful and that the views of jurors from different races or classes are not simply ignored by the majority. A non-unanimous system corrodes public confidence and undermines the protections against bigotry and prejudice that the jury system is meant to provide.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. Allowing a non-unanimous conviction strips the right to a jury and the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of their meaning. The existence of three jurors who, after hearing all the evidence, entertain doubts about guilt is direct evidence that the government has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. To say otherwise does violence to both language and logic. The argument that a hung jury leads to a retrial is a non-sequitur, as that issue relates to double jeopardy, not whether the standard of proof was met in the first trial.
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Apodaca v. Oregon, established that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement for jury verdicts applies only to federal, not state, criminal trials. This created a 'dual-track' system of justice, granting states significant flexibility in structuring their criminal procedures. The ruling was highly controversial, with critics arguing that it weakened the reasonable doubt standard and marginalized minority viewpoints on juries. This precedent stood for nearly 50 years until it was overturned by Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), which held that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement is fully incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Louisiana