Patton v. United States

Background

The case arose after men indicted for conspiring to bribe a federal prohibition agent began trial before a twelve-person jury in October 1927. One juror became too ill to continue, and the defendants, their counsel, and the government stipulated in open court to finish the trial with the remaining eleven jurors. The eleven returned a guilty verdict, and the question was certified: can a defendant waive the constitutional right to a twelve-member jury and allow the trial to proceed with fewer jurors?

Reasoning

The Court examined Article III and the Sixth Amendment and traced the common-law elements of a jury trial: twelve jurors, a presiding judge, and unanimous verdicts. It held that the right to a jury of twelve is a personal right the accused may waive. Because Congress vested trial power in the federal courts, a district court may, in its discretion, accept an express and intelligent waiver and proceed with fewer jurors or without a jury, provided the government’s representative and the court itself approve. The opinion rejected public-policy arguments barring waiver and emphasized that courts must exercise sound discretion and greater caution as the seriousness of the offense increases.

Real world impact

Practically, trials may be finished when a juror is incapacitated if the defendant knowingly agrees and the prosecutor and judge sanction the change. The decision requires clear, intelligent consent and judicial oversight to protect the accused. The Chief Justice did not participate; several Justices agreed with the result, and the Court answered the certified question in the affirmative.