Lewis v. United States
518 U.S. 322 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to a defendant prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses, even if the aggregate potential prison term for those offenses exceeds six months. The right attaches based on the legislative characterization of each individual offense, not the cumulative penalty faced by the defendant.
Facts:
- Ray Lewis was a mail handler for the United States Postal Service.
- Postal inspectors observed Lewis opening several pieces of mail and pocketing the contents.
- The following day, inspectors placed marked currency inside "test" mail and routed it through Lewis's station.
- Lewis was observed opening the test mail and removing the currency, after which he was arrested.
- Lewis was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, a federal offense.
- Each count of obstructing the mail carried a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Ray Lewis with two counts of obstructing the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1701.
- Lewis requested a jury trial before a Magistrate Judge.
- The Government filed a motion for a bench trial, which the Magistrate Judge granted, stating that she would not sentence Lewis to more than six months' imprisonment.
- Lewis sought review of the jury trial denial in the U.S. District Court, which affirmed the Magistrate Judge's ruling.
- Lewis, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the right to a jury trial depends on the character of the offense, not the potential aggregate sentence.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Lewis's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 defendant, prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses, have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial where the aggregate maximum prison term authorized for the offenses exceeds six months?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its scope does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison term in excess of six months for multiple petty offenses charged in a single proceeding. The right to a jury trial is reserved for prosecutions of 'serious' offenses. To determine if an offense is serious, the Court looks to objective indications of the legislature's judgment, primarily the maximum authorized prison term. An offense carrying a maximum term of six months or less is presumptively petty. Here, Congress set the maximum penalty for obstructing the mail at six months, classifying it as a petty offense. The fact that Lewis was charged with two such offenses does not alter the legislative judgment about the gravity of the individual offense or transform the petty offenses into a serious one requiring a jury. This approach differs from criminal contempt cases like Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, where the legislature had not set a maximum penalty, forcing courts to look at the sentence actually imposed.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. Lewis had no constitutional right to a jury trial, but only because the presiding judge made a pretrial commitment that the aggregate sentence would not exceed six months. The majority's broader holding—that a defendant can be sentenced to years in prison without a jury so long as each individual offense is petty—is a serious incursion on the Sixth Amendment. Precedent from cases like Codispoti v. Pennsylvania establishes that the right to a jury trial extends to a defendant sentenced in one proceeding to more than six months' imprisonment, even for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's purpose is to prevent the government from imposing a serious deprivation of liberty without a jury's consent. However, because the judge here guaranteed a sentence of six months or less, the risk of a serious deprivation of liberty was removed, and thus the right to a jury trial did not attach in this specific case.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. A defendant has a right to a jury trial when a criminal prosecution exposes them to a potential sentence of longer than six months, regardless of whether that stems from a single offense or an aggregation of offenses. The Sixth Amendment refers to the right attaching in 'all criminal prosecutions,' and the severity should be measured by the maximum sentence authorized for the prosecution as a whole. In this case, Lewis faced a potential 12-month sentence, making the prosecution 'serious' from the outset. A judge cannot strip a defendant of this pre-existing constitutional right by making a pretrial promise to limit the sentence. The dishonor associated with multiple convictions for petty offenses can be equivalent to that of a single serious crime.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'offense-by-offense' approach for determining the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, rejecting an 'aggregate-penalty' approach for statutory crimes. It confirms that the six-month threshold established in Blanton v. North Las Vegas is the determinative factor for classifying an offense as 'petty' or 'serious.' This ruling gives prosecutors significant leverage, allowing them to charge multiple petty offenses in a single proceeding to avoid a jury trial, even when the defendant faces a substantial cumulative prison sentence. The decision strictly cabins the holding of Codispoti to the unique context of criminal contempt where no legislative maximum penalty exists.
Unlock the full brief for Lewis v. United States