United States v. Wood
299 U.S. 123, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 952, 57 S. Ct. 177 (1936)
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an impartial jury does not create an absolute disqualification for federal government employees or recipients of government gratuities to serve as jurors in criminal cases, provided there is no showing of actual bias. Congress has the power to define juror qualifications, so long as the essential substance of an impartial jury is preserved.
Facts:
- Frank H. Wood was accused of petit larceny from a private corporation.
- During jury selection, prospective jurors included individuals employed by various United States government departments (e.g., Weather Bureau, Treasury, Navy Yard) and a housewife receiving a civil war pension.
- Wood challenged these prospective jurors for cause, arguing their government affiliation created an interest in the United States Government.
- The trial court disallowed these challenges, relying on the Act of August 22, 1935, which explicitly made such persons eligible for jury service.
- Wood exhausted his three peremptory challenges.
- The final jury included the civil war pension recipient and two clerks employed in the Treasury Department and the Navy Yard.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank H. Wood was convicted of petit larceny in the Police Court of the District of Columbia.
- Wood appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the Act of August 22, 1935.
- The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that the statute, as applied to criminal cases, violated the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an impartial jury.
- The United States Government sought and was granted certiorari by 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 Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an impartial jury prohibit Congress from enacting a statute that makes federal government employees and recipients of government gratuities eligible to serve as jurors in criminal cases in the District of Columbia, where no actual bias is shown?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hughes
No, the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit Congress from making federal government employees and recipients of government gratuities eligible for jury service in criminal cases, so long as actual bias is not present. The Court affirmed that the Sixth Amendment mandates an impartial jury but does not prescribe specific tests for impartiality, distinguishing between actual bias (bias in fact) and implied bias (bias presumed as a matter of law). Historical research into English common law demonstrates no settled practice establishing an absolute disqualification for servants of the Crown to serve as jurors in Crown cases, provided no actual bias existed; challenges in such instances were typically 'to the favor' rather than 'principal' (absolute disqualification). Furthermore, there is no satisfactory evidence indicating a different practice in the American colonies or states at the time the Sixth Amendment was adopted. The Court clarified that Blackstone's Commentaries, while influential, referred to relationships with private parties, not Crown servants, and therefore did not refute the historical exception for government employees. The Court distinguished its prior ruling in Crawford v. United States (1908), noting that Crawford was decided without a comprehensive presentation of English precedents on Crown servants and did not address Congress's legislative power over juror qualifications. Even if a common law disqualification for government employees had existed, Congress possesses the power to modify or remove it. The Sixth Amendment aims to preserve the 'substance' of the right to trial by jury, not rigid adherence to historical 'forms or procedures.' Impartiality is a 'state of mind,' not a static technical conception, allowing legislatures reasonable freedom to adapt juror qualifications to modern needs, as long as the essential right to an impartial jury is maintained. The Court found no rational basis to presume bias solely due to governmental employment, especially in cases unrelated to the specific governmental function of the juror, noting that such a presumption would be 'far-fetched and chimerical' and detrimental to jury selection in the District of Columbia. The 1935 Act was a legislative response to a public need and a declaration that the prior disqualification was artificial. The statute also does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Dissenting - Justices McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler
Yes, the statute making federal government employees eligible for jury service in criminal cases should be considered unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, as established by prior precedent. Justices McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler expressed their opinion that the case was controlled by the Court's previous decision in Crawford v. United States, 212 U. S. 183, and that the rule laid down in that case (disqualifying government employees from jury service) should not be abandoned. They believed the Court of Appeals' opinion, which reversed the conviction, was sound and should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifts the interpretation of juror impartiality under the Sixth Amendment, moving away from a strict, historical common law understanding of 'implied bias' based on status. By differentiating between actual and implied bias, the Court empowers Congress to legislate on juror qualifications, enabling adaptation of the jury system to evolving societal structures and demographics, particularly relevant in federal hubs like the District of Columbia. The ruling establishes that the constitutional right to an impartial jury prioritizes the functional integrity of the jury over outdated formalistic disqualifications, thereby broadening the potential jury pool while preserving mechanisms to detect and address actual prejudice. This case sets a precedent for legislative flexibility in procedural matters related to jury composition, as long as the core guarantee of impartiality is protected through mechanisms like voir dire to uncover actual bias.
