Taylor v. Kentucky
436 U.S. 478 (1978)
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a trial judge, upon a defendant's request, to give a jury instruction on the presumption of innocence when the failure to do so, combined with other circumstances, creates a genuine danger that the jury will convict based on extraneous considerations rather than on the evidence presented at trial.
Facts:
- James Maddox accused petitioner Taylor of forcing his way into Maddox's home with a friend.
- Maddox testified that Taylor and the friend hit him over the head.
- Maddox claimed Taylor stole his billfold, containing $10 to $15, and a house key.
- The stolen items were never recovered.
- Taylor testified in his own defense, denying he was at Maddox's home on the night of the incident.
- Taylor stated he had an alibi, claiming he spent the evening with two friends in a parked car.
- The trial essentially amounted to a credibility contest, or 'swearing contest', between the accuser, Maddox, and the accused, Taylor.
Procedural Posture:
- Taylor was tried for robbery in a Kentucky state trial court.
- The defense requested jury instructions on the presumption of innocence and the non-evidentiary nature of an indictment, but the trial court refused to give them.
- A jury found Taylor guilty, and he was sentenced to five years in prison.
- Taylor, as appellant, appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, with one judge dissenting.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied Taylor's request for discretionary review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Taylor'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 state trial court's refusal to give a defendant's requested jury instruction on the presumption of innocence violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes. On the facts of this case, the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction on the presumption of innocence violated the petitioner's right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that while the presumption of innocence is not articulated in the Constitution, it is a fundamental component of a fair trial that has a 'salutary effect' on lay jurors. This instruction cautions the jury to disregard suspicion arising from the arrest and indictment and to reach a conclusion based solely on the evidence. In this specific case, the need for the instruction was heightened by the trial court's 'skeletal' instructions, the prosecutor's improper remarks linking Taylor to all other convicted defendants, and the fact that the trial was a 'swearing contest' between the victim and the accused, which created a genuine danger of conviction based on extraneous factors.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. The Court’s opinion correctly reaffirms that the presumption of innocence is a 'basic component of a fair trial.' It follows from this principle that trial judges should instruct the jury on a criminal defendant's entitlement to a presumption of innocence in all cases where such an instruction is requested.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stevens
No. While refusing such an instruction is reversible error in a federal court, its omission in a state trial does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The dissent argued that the instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt serves the same essential function as the presumption of innocence instruction. Furthermore, the jurors were made aware of the principle during voir dire, and the prosecutor's closing argument did not prompt an objection from defense counsel. Therefore, the trial, while imperfect, was not fundamentally unfair.
Analysis:
This decision elevates the presumption of innocence from a common law procedural rule to a principle with constitutional weight under the Due Process Clause. The Court stopped short of creating an absolute rule requiring the instruction in every case, instead establishing that its omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire trial for fundamental fairness. The ruling places a duty on trial courts to guard against convictions based on improper inferences, especially when prosecutorial arguments or weak instructions create a risk of jury confusion. Future cases involving challenges to jury instructions will likely use this case's totality-of-the-circumstances approach to determine if a trial was fundamentally fair.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Taylor v. Kentucky (1978)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"