Patton et al. v. United States
281 U.S. 276 (1930)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutional right to a trial by a jury of twelve is a privilege afforded to the accused, not a jurisdictional requirement of the court, and may be waived if the defendant expressly and intelligently consents, the government counsel agrees, and the court approves.
Facts:
- Patton and his co-defendants were charged with conspiracy to bribe a federal prohibition agent, a crime punishable by a penitentiary sentence.
- A jury of twelve was properly impaneled and their federal trial commenced.
- After the trial had been underway for one week, one of the twelve jurors became severely ill and was unable to continue serving.
- To avoid a mistrial, the government and the defendants, through their counsel, stipulated in open court to proceed with the remaining eleven jurors.
- The defendants each personally assented to this stipulation after conferring with their counsel and being advised by the court of their right to a twelve-person jury.
Procedural Posture:
- Patton and others were indicted in a U.S. District Court (trial court).
- During their trial, the parties agreed to proceed with eleven jurors after one became ill.
- The eleven-person jury rendered a verdict of guilty against the defendants.
- The district court entered judgment and sentenced the defendants to imprisonment.
- The defendants appealed their conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, uncertain of the law on jury waiver, certified the question to the U.S. Supreme Court for instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a defendant in a federal criminal trial, where the punishment may be a penitentiary sentence, waive their constitutional right to a trial by a twelve-person jury and consent to a verdict rendered by eleven jurors after one juror becomes incapacitated mid-trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sutherland
Yes, a defendant can waive the right to a trial by twelve jurors and consent to a verdict by eleven. The constitutional provisions for a jury trial (Article III, Section 2, and the Sixth Amendment) confer a right upon the accused, which he may forego at his election, rather than establishing a tribunal that is an inseparable part of the court's structure. The court reasoned that since an accused can waive nearly all trial rights, including the right to a trial itself by pleading guilty, it follows that they can also waive the right to a full jury of twelve. The old common law rule forbidding waiver was based on conditions—such as the accused's inability to testify and the lack of counsel—that no longer exist in the modern criminal justice system. The court rejected the public policy argument against waiver, finding no logical distinction between allowing waiver for misdemeanors but not for felonies. However, this waiver is not absolute; it can only become effective with 1) the express and intelligent consent of the defendant, 2) the consent of government counsel, and 3) the sanction and approval of the court.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally recharacterized the constitutional right to a jury trial as a personal privilege that can be waived, rather than an unalterable, jurisdictional component of a federal court. By establishing a three-part test for waiver, the Court provided a practical solution to the problem of a juror becoming incapacitated mid-trial, preventing automatic mistrials and promoting judicial efficiency. The ruling diminished the rigid formalism of the common law, empowering defendants with greater autonomy over their trial proceedings. This precedent continues to govern the waiver of jury trials in federal courts, influencing procedures for handling juror issues and shaping the understanding of constitutional trial rights as waivable protections for the accused.
Unlock the full brief for Patton et al. v. United States