Maxwell v. Dow

Background

A Utah man was charged with robbery in 1898, tried by an eight-person jury, convicted, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He sued for release, saying the state prosecuted him by an "information" instead of a grand jury indictment and tried him with only eight jurors instead of twelve. He argued those procedures violated the Constitution’s protections for citizens and the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of due process and privileges or immunities.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether those state procedures conflicted with the federal Constitution. Relying on earlier decisions (including Hurtado v. California and other precedents cited in the opinion), the majority concluded that using an information instead of a grand jury and holding non-capital trials with eight jurors did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges-or-immunities clause or the amendment’s due-process guarantee. The Court held that the States may set these trial procedures themselves so long as the laws apply equally and do not deny fundamental rights under other clear constitutional limits. The Utah conviction was therefore affirmed.

Real world impact

The decision leaves control over many trial procedures with individual States. People charged in state courts can be tried in non-capital cases without a grand jury and, where state law allows, by smaller juries. The ruling does not incorporate every federal trial rule against the States and confirms prior cases that let States design their own procedures.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan dissented, arguing the Bill of Rights protections (including grand jury and twelve-person juries) are privileges of U.S. citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the majority’s view risks allowing serious erosion of national guarantees.