Ballew v. Georgia and Burch v. Louisiana

Ballew v. Georgia and Burch v. Louisiana
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Lecturer’s Name
Assignment Due Date
Ballew v. Georgia and Burch v. Louisiana
The bill of rights allows every American an opportunity to a fair trial. America has a history of guaranteeing its citizens most of their fundamental rights even when accused of various crimes. In an attempt to continue their liberties, the constitution, through the 6th Amendment, guarantees the accused the right to fair trials through the constitution of a jury of severe crimes. The jury system in the U.S. bears a long historical standing with various controversies attached. The Ballew v. Georgia and Burch v. Louisiana are two of the many cases that form precedence in the application of juries in severe cases and an understanding of the different thresholds that juries must meet. This paper analyzes the right to fair trial from the juries through the lenses of Ballew v. Georgia and Burch v. Louisiana changed the basics of the constitution of juries in the U.S. courts. An exploration of the two cases should explain the different thresholds and scopes of the right to a fair trial and the protections available to a defendant under the Sixth Amendment as they relate to the concepts of concepts such as a speedy trial, impartial jury, and the right to face their accusers.
Ballew v. Georgia Case Brief
Brief Fact Summary
A five-person jury convicted the petitioner.
Synopsis of the Rule of Law
The petitioner argued that a 5-person jury was unconstitutional because it contravened the fundamental importance of juries under U.S. law. A further reduction of the number of the jury below six prevents juries from attaining constitutional significance, limits the juries’ representation of their communities, causes untoward differences in verdicts, and promotes inaccurate and possibly biased decisions by the jury.
Facts
According to Georgia law, the petitioner, Claude Davis Ballew, was charged with committing a misdemeanor and was subjected to a five-person jury trial. The petitioner was convicted. Ballew appealed the decision arguing that a 6-person jury is permissible under Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78. The petitioner further indicated that a jury of fewer than six people contravened the law. The Georgian courts rejected the defendant’s prayers.
Issue
The rejection of the petitioner's request on the number of jury present on his cases triggered a special constitutional issue. The issue was whether the state trial to a five-person jury deprived the petitioner of his right to a fair trial according to the 6th and 14th Amendments.
Summary
The constitution protects the rights of all the defendants in all criminal prosecutions. Through the 6th Amendment, the law demands that the accused enjoys the right to an impartial jury of the state or district wherein the crime is committed. The 6th Amendment, however, does not explicitly state the number of persons in a constitution of a jury. Having been convicted, Ballew exploited the inputs of the 6th Amendment as read by the precedent set in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 to appeal that the 5-person jury that ruled on his conviction was unconstitutional. The laws of Georgia allow for a 5-person jury in misdemeanors.
Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision that rejected, among other things, prayer by the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed that the use of a five-member jury deprived the defendant of his sixth and 14th Amendment liberties that guarantee the right to trial by a jury. While applying scholarly writings and previous holdings, the court enunciated that important questions were raised about the constitutionality and wisdom behind reducing the jury size to below six people. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Stevens, concluded that constituting a jury of fewer than six people threatens the liberties guaranteed to defendants through the 6th and the 14th Amendments.
The reasoning behind the Ruling
The Ballew v. Georgia was primarily based on constitutional and scholarly inputs. Justice White noted that constituting a jury of fewer than six people would fail to satisfy the fair cross-section requirements as outlined in the 6th and 14th Amendments. In his submissions, Justice Powell asserted that even though there is a thin line between a five and 6-member jury, there must be a line drawn to preserve the value of the substance of jury trial in criminal cases. With the citations of time and financial constraints, it would be possible that some cases would reduce the representation in the jury even further, thereby casting doubts on the elements of fair trial through juries. The ruling further noted that Georgia did not present any persuasive argument to the contrary.
In conclusion, neither the time-saving benefit nor the financial benefit claims did not guarantee a jury of fewer members. The ruling was also embedded in empirical data suggesting that verdicts of juries in criminal cases vary depending on the sizes of the jury. Additionally, the representation of minority ethnic groups was adversely threatened by reducing the number of juries.
History of Juries
The jury is a historic legal institution that allows the participation of laypersons in deciding trial cases. The exact characteristics of a jury vary from the laws of nations or states in which they are found. However, the recruitment process instills the community's inputs regardless of their knowledge of the law (Tomkovicz, 2011). Throughout its history, the use of juries in trials has been praised as a charter of liberty and criticized as an attempt to rely on incompetent individuals in the administration of justice.
The history of the application of juries in the U.S. has been a subject of debate, with most of its influence witnessed before independence. The period after independence marked the growth of juries in U.S. trials, with Thomas Jefferson citing the importance of juries. In 1780, the commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first to declare their constitution that guaranteed the right to a trial by jury (Tomkovicz, 2011). Seven years after the ratification of the Massachusetts constitution, delegates gathered in Philadelphia to create a national constitution, which would be rejected because it did not include essential issues, necessary of which was the right to trial by jury. The addition of the bill of rights led to trial through juries in the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendm...