http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/jury-trial/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Mon, 01 Mar 1971 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Apodaca and two other defendants were convicted of assault, burglary, and grand larceny before three separate juries, all of which returned verdicts which were less than unanimous. Two of the cases were 11-1 and the other was 10-2 in favor of conviction.</p> <p>Is a defendant's right to a trial by jury in a criminal case in a state court (as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments) violated if the accused is convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury?</p> 69-5046_19710301-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_69_5046/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Ballew was found in violation of a misdemeanor for exhibiting an obscene motion picture film. In the Criminal Court of Fulton County, a jury of five persons was selected and sworn to hear the case.</p> <p>Does a state criminal trial by a jury of only five persons deprive the accused of the right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 76-761_19771101-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_761/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 09 Jan 1989 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 87-1437_19890109-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1437/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Thu, 22 Feb 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Burch was found guilty by a nonunanimous six-member jury of showing obscene films. The court imposed a suspended prison sentence of two consecutive seven-month terms and fined him $1,000.</p> <p>Does a conviction by a nonunanimous six-member jury in a state criminal trial for a nonpetty offense violate the accused's right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 78-90_19790222-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_90/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 17 Jan 1968 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Gary Duncan, a black teenager in Louisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied.</p> <p>Was the State of Louisiana obligated to provide a trial by jury in criminal cases such as Duncan's?</p> 410_19680117-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_410/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 09 Jan 1989 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 87-1716_19890109-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1716/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:00:00 -0500 <p>William Harris, who sold illegal narcotics at his pawnshop with an unconcealed semiautomatic pistol at his side, was convicted for violating 18 USC section 924(c)(1)(A), which provides that a person who in relation to a drug trafficking crime uses or carries a firearm "shall, in addition to the punishment for such crime...if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to...not less than 7 years." When his presentence report recommended that he receive the 7-year minimum sentence, Harris objected, arguing that brandishing was an element of a separate statutory offense for which he was not indicted or convicted. The District Court found that Harris had brandished the gun and sentenced him to seven years in prison. In affirming, the Court of Appeals found that McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, in which the U.S. Supreme Court sustained a statute that increased the minimum penalty for a crime, though not beyond the statutory maximum, foreclosed his argument that if brandishing is a sentencing factor, the statute is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466.</p> <p>Is McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, valid after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466?</p> 00-10666_20020325-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_10666/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 01 Mar 1971 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Louisiana State Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure allowed less-than-unanimous juries to convict defendants in criminal cases in which hard labor is considered as punishment. Nine of twelve jury members were needed to return a guilty verdict. Johnson was convicted of armed robbery by a jury split nine to three.</p> <p>Do less-than-unanimous jury verdicts in certain cases violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?</p> 69-5035_19710301-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_69_5035/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 10 Jan 1972 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Louisiana State Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure allowed less-than-unanimous juries to convict defendants in criminal cases in which hard labor is considered as punishment. Nine of twelve jury members were needed to return a guilty verdict. Johnson was convicted of armed robbery by a jury split nine to three.</p> <p>Do less-than-unanimous jury verdicts in certain cases violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?</p> 69-5035_19720110-lq-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_69_5035/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 31 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 80-242_19810331-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_242/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Ray Lewis, a mail handler for the United States Postal Service, was observed opening several pieces of mail and pocketing the contents. Subsequently, Lewis was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, where each charge carries a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months. Lewis requested a jury trial. Denying his request, the Magistrate Judge ordered a bench trial, explaining that because she would not sentence him to more than six months' imprisonment, he was not entitled to a jury trial. The District Court affirmed. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that the Sixth Amendment jury trial right pertains only to those offenses for which the legislature has authorized a maximum penalty of over six months' imprisonment. The Court continued that, because each offense charged was petty in character, the fact that Lewis was facing more than six months' imprisonment in the aggregate did not entitle him to a jury trial. The court also reasoned that because the offense's characterization as petty or serious determined the right to a jury trial, a trial judge's self-imposed limitation on sentencing could not deprive a defendant of that right.</p> <p>Does a defendant who is prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses have a constitutional right to a jury trial where the aggregate prison term authorized for the offenses exceeds six months? May a defendant who would otherwise have a constitutional right to a jury trial be denied that right because the presiding judge has made a pretrial commitment that the aggregate sentence imposed will not exceed six months?</p> 95-6465_19960423-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_6465/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 06 Dec 1977 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 76-1346_19771206-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1346/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 28 Apr 1976 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 75-377_19760428-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_377/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 08 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 88-334_19900108-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_334/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 08 Jan 1996 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Herbert Markman owns the patent to a system that tracks clothing through the dry-cleaning process using a keyboard and data processor to generate transaction records, including a bar code readable by optical detectors. According to the patent's claim, the portion of the patent document that defines the patentee's rights, Markman's product can "maintain an inventory total" and "detect and localize spurious additions to inventory." Westview Instruments, Inc.'s product also uses a keyboard and processor and lists dry-cleaning charges on bar-coded tickets that can be read by optical detectors. In an infringement suit, after hearing an expert witness testify about the meaning of the claim's language, a jury found that Westview's product had infringed Markman's patent. However, the District Court directed a verdict for Westview on the ground that its device is unable to track "inventory" as that term is used in the claim. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the interpretation of claim terms is the exclusive province of the court and that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is consistent with that conclusion.</p> <p>Is the interpretation of a patent's claim, the portion of the patent document that defines the scope of the patentee's rights, a matter of fact to be decided by jurors?</p> 95-26_19960108-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_26/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 28 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 82-958_19831128-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_958/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 07 Oct 1998 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Del Monte Dunes sought to develop property it owned within the jurisdiction of the city of Monterey. Monterey continuously denied Del Monte Dunes' proposals to develop the property. Each rejection was followed by stricter and more rigorous demands for a smaller, less intrusive development. After years of rejection, Del Monte Dunes decided Monterey would not allow development under any circumstances. Del Monte Dunes sued the city in federal court under 42 USC Section 1983, alleging that the denial of their final proposal was a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, Del Monte Dunes claimed, the continuous demands constituted regulatory abuse. The District Court submitted Del Monte Dunes case to the jury. The judge instructed the jury to find for Del Monte Dunes if the jurors found Del Monte Dunes had been denied every economically viable use for its property or if the city's decision to reject the development did not directly advance a legitimate public purpose. The jury found for Del Monte Dunes on the equal protection and abuse claims, and it awarded monetary damages. The city prevailed on the due process claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings despite the city of Monterey's objection to the use of a jury in government land-use regulation cases. It found no errors in the use of the jury or the jury's decision.</p> <p>Do plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial over land-use regulations when they allege constitutional violations under 42 USC Section 1983?</p> 97-1235_19981007-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1235/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 06 Dec 1989 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 88-1719_19891206-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1719/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 21 Jan 1987 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 85-1259_19870121-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1259/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 16 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 90-967_19911016-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_967/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist