Turner v. Louisiana

Supreme Court of United States
379 U.S. 466 (1965)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury under the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when key prosecution witnesses have a continuous and intimate association with the jurors throughout the trial, as this arrangement is inherently prejudicial.

Facts:

Wayne Turner was on trial for murder in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.
During the three-day trial, the jury was sequestered and placed under the charge of deputy sheriffs.
Two deputy sheriffs, Vincent Rispone and Hulon Simmons, were the principal witnesses for the prosecution, providing testimony about Turner's apprehension and confession.
These same two deputies were in continuous and close contact with the sequestered jury for the entire three days.
Rispone and Simmons drove the jurors to meals and lodging, ate with them, conversed with them, and ran errands for them.
The credibility of Rispone's and Simmons's testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case and a determining factor in Turner's conviction.

Procedural Posture:

Wayne Turner was indicted for murder in a Louisiana state trial court.
During his jury trial, Turner's counsel moved for a mistrial after the two principal prosecution witnesses, who were also supervising the jury, testified; the trial court denied the motion.
The jury found Turner guilty, and the court sentenced him to death.
The trial court denied Turner's motion for a new trial, which was based on the same grounds as the mistrial motion.
Turner appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (the state's highest court), which affirmed the conviction.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review Turner's Fourteenth Amendment claim.

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 continuous, close association between key prosecution witnesses, who are also deputy sheriffs in charge of the sequestered jury, and the jurors throughout a criminal trial deprive the defendant of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart

Yes. A criminal defendant is deprived of the right to a fair trial when key prosecution witnesses have a continuous and intimate association with the sequestered jury. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a trial by an impartial jury whose verdict is based solely on evidence developed in open court. The constant, out-of-court association between the jurors and the two key prosecution witnesses subverted this guarantee, creating an inherent prejudice that may have rendered the courtroom proceedings a 'hollow formality.' This prejudice was exacerbated by the fact that the witnesses were also deputy sheriffs, acting as the jurors' official guardians, which could not but foster the jurors' confidence in them and their testimony.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark

No. While the practice of permitting an officer who testifies to also be in charge of the jury is inadvisable, it does not rise to the level of a federal due process violation without a specific showing of prejudice. In this case, no prejudice was shown, as there was no evidence the deputies discussed the case with the jurors. Since the practice has been accepted in numerous other jurisdictions, it cannot be deemed a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause without evidence of actual harm.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that certain trial arrangements can be deemed 'inherently prejudicial,' violating a defendant's due process rights even without proof of actual bias or improper communication. It strengthens the principle that a jury must be insulated from out-of-court influences, particularly from key actors for the prosecution. The ruling creates a strong presumption against allowing state's witnesses, especially those in positions of authority like law enforcement, to have custodial or continuous social contact with jurors. This precedent significantly impacts court procedures for jury sequestration and the management of witness-juror interactions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Turner v. Louisiana (1965)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature