Blackburn, Warden v. Thomas

1981-02-23

Headline: Denies review in case about a man convicted by a five-member jury; leaves lower-court ruling applying a later six-member jury rule retroactively and affects small-jury convictions.

Holding: Certiorari denied; the Supreme Court refused to review the Fifth Circuit’s retroactive application of the later six-member jury rule to the petitioner’s five-member jury conviction.

Real World Impact:

Leaves a five-member jury conviction overturned by lower courts in place.
Potentially reopens other long-final convictions decided by five-person juries.
Highlights tension between finality of convictions and new constitutional rules.

Topics: jury size, retroactive relief, criminal convictions, finality of convictions

Summary

Background

In 1972 a man in Louisiana was tried and convicted of possessing and distributing cocaine and heroin by a five-member jury allowed under state law. He did not object at trial and later exhausted state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. After this Court decided Ballew (1978) that juries must have at least six members, a federal district court granted relief and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying Ballew retroactively to his already-final conviction.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a rule announced after a conviction became final should open old cases to new trials. The Supreme Court denied review, leaving the appeals court’s retroactive application intact. Justice Powell dissented, arguing the Fifth Circuit misapplied the Brown plurality and that earlier decisions about jury composition (Ballew and Burch) and concerns about finality counsel against broad retroactive relief on collateral review.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the lower-court outcome stands and this particular five-member jury conviction was invalidated under the later rule. That leaves open the possibility that other long-final convictions decided by five-person juries could be reopened, even though witnesses and memories often fade. The denial means the Supreme Court did not settle the national rule on retroactivity here.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist, would have granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, stressing the importance of finality and the practical disadvantages states face when old convictions are reopened.