United States v. Jackson et al.
390 U.S. 570 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute is unconstitutional if one of its provisions needlessly chills the exercise of a fundamental right, such as the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty. An unconstitutional provision may be severed if the remainder of the statute is functionally independent and fully operative as a law.
Facts:
- Three defendants, Charles Jackson, Glenn Walter Alexander De La Motte, and John Albert Walsh, Jr., were accused of transporting John Joseph Grant, III in interstate commerce from Connecticut to New Jersey.
- The defendants allegedly seized and held Grant for ransom and reward.
- The purpose of the transport was also to aid the defendants in escaping arrest.
- The indictment stated that Grant was harmed when he was liberated.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the District of Connecticut returned an indictment against Charles Jackson and two others for violating the Federal Kidnaping Act.
- In the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the defendants moved to dismiss the kidnaping count of the indictment.
- The District Court granted the motion, holding that the Federal Kidnaping Act's death penalty provision was unconstitutional because it impaired the right to a jury trial.
- The Government, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 Federal Kidnaping Act, which authorizes the death penalty only upon the recommendation of a jury, unconstitutionally burden a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by making the risk of death the price for asserting the right to a jury trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. A statutory provision that imposes the death penalty only upon defendants who assert their right to a jury trial is unconstitutional because it needlessly penalizes and discourages the exercise of fundamental rights. The court rejected the government's argument that a judge could impanel a special sentencing jury for defendants who plead guilty or waive a jury trial, finding no basis for such a procedure in the statute's text or legislative history. The statute's clear language states the death penalty 'shall' be imposed if recommended by 'the jury,' which refers to the jury that determines guilt. The inevitable effect of this scheme is to discourage the assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and deter the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. While Congress may legitimately seek to mitigate the severity of capital punishment, it cannot do so through means that needlessly chill constitutional rights, especially when less burdensome alternatives exist. However, this unconstitutional death penalty provision is severable from the rest of the statute, as Congress's primary intent was to make interstate kidnapping a federal crime, and the law can operate fully without the capital punishment clause.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
No. The Court's remedy of invalidating the death penalty provision is unnecessarily broad and disregards Congress's intent. The majority acknowledges that not every guilty plea under this statute would be coerced by the fear of capital punishment. Therefore, instead of striking down the provision on its face, the proper approach would be for trial courts to carefully scrutinize guilty pleas and jury waivers on a case-by-case basis. This would ensure that any plea or waiver is truly voluntary and not the product of coercion or undue encouragement from the statute's penalty structure. This narrower approach would protect defendants' constitutional rights without needlessly invalidating a major portion of a congressional act.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant precedent under the 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine, affirming that the government cannot penalize a defendant for exercising their constitutional rights. By striking down a penalty scheme that made the right to a jury trial more perilous than a guilty plea, the Court influenced subsequent capital punishment jurisprudence, leading to reforms in how sentencing is structured. This case highlighted the need for sentencing procedures that do not discourage defendants from asserting their fundamental trial rights and served as a precursor to later challenges regarding arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty. It mandates that any chilling effect on constitutional rights must be necessary to achieve a legitimate state interest, not merely an incidental byproduct of a poorly designed statute.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Jackson et al.