Fay v. New York

Background

Two union vice-presidents were tried for conspiracy to extort and extortion in connection with New York City construction contracts for the Delaware Water Supply project. The indictment charged seven counts; the jury acquitted on three counts, disagreed on one, and convicted on two counts. The convictions were upheld by New York appellate courts. The defendants argued their trial was unfair because the court used a special or “blue ribbon” jury panel instead of a jury drawn from the larger general panel.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the special jury panel so narrowed the pool of possible jurors that it denied the defendants equal protection or due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found the statutory qualifications for special jurors facially valid and emphasized that each juror who sat was accepted by the defendants without challenge. The defendants relied on occupation and gender statistics and on a state Judicial Council study suggesting special juries had higher conviction rates years earlier. The majority held that the evidence did not prove intentional or continuing discrimination in 1945 and that defendants failed to meet the heavy burden to show the system denied them equal protection or due process.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves New York’s special jury statute in place and affirms these particular convictions. It means defendants cannot overturn verdicts simply because a jury was drawn from a special panel unless they prove purposeful, prejudicial exclusion or unfair administration of the system. The opinion recognizes administrative and policy objections but treats them as matters for state reform rather than federal constitutional invalidation.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Murphy dissented, arguing the "blue ribbon" panel systematically excluded working-class occupations and failed to reflect a community cross-section. He relied on the statistical disparities and urged reversal; Justices Black, Douglas, and Rutledge joined him.