Ballew v. Georgia

1978-03-21

Headline: Court strikes down five-person criminal juries, ruling they violate the Constitution and forcing states that use five-member panels to use larger juries for serious misdemeanor and other criminal trials.

Holding: The Court held that criminal trials conducted before five-person juries violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, so five-member juries are unconstitutional in serious criminal cases.

Real World Impact:

Invalidates five-person juries in nonpetty criminal trials.
Requires new proceedings or retrials consistent with this ruling.
Forces states using five-member panels (e.g., Georgia, Virginia) to change jury size.

Topics: jury size, criminal jury rights, trial procedure, state courts

Summary

Background

Claude Ballew, the manager of an Atlanta adult movie theater, was arrested after investigators viewed and seized copies of a film. He was tried on two misdemeanor counts for distributing obscene material under Georgia law. The trial was held before a five-person jury under Georgia law; Ballew asked for a 12-person jury, was convicted, and appealed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a five-person jury satisfies the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on the reasoning in Williams v. Florida and reviewing empirical studies, the majority concluded that juries smaller than six impair group deliberation, memory, minority representation, and verdict reliability. The Court held that a five-member jury does not perform the core functions of the jury and is constitutionally inadequate. The Court reversed the state appellate decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Real world impact

The decision invalidates the use of five-person juries in nonpetty criminal trials and requires courts that used such panels to switch to larger juries or otherwise comply with the ruling. The Court did not decide the other trial issues (for example, whether the film was obscene), so those matters may be revisited on remand. The opinion notes that only a few States used five-member juries, but the rule applies to all States.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices joined the judgment but added separate views: some agreed only with the result, one objected to full incorporation reasoning, and one Justice would also have reached other statutory questions differently.