3 ms·

I'm confused at the article. What part of the 6th amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions...") distinguishes "non-serious" crimes from "serious crimes"? Also,

I'm confused at the article. What part of the 6th amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions...") distinguishes "non-serious" crimes from "serious crimes"? Also, does anyone know where hung juries fit into this? You would think that you're not-guilty until you're proven guilty, so what is this weird 3rd-state of "not guilty and also not not-guilty" based on in the 6th amendment?

vageli 7y ago
> I'm confused at the article. What part of the 6th amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions...") distinguishes "non-serious" crimes from "serious crimes"? They may be referring to felonies, but yeah the wording seems strange to me as well.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Do you know why even felonies would be distinguished here, even if that's what they meant? The amendment literally says "in all criminal prosecutions"... how does "all" turn into "some"?
  - AaronFriel 7y ago
    The Supreme Court tends to issue narrow opinions only on the case or controversy (Article III, Section 2) before it. The Court does not decide on matters not before it, so if the issue before it was about "serious crimes". The case was originally brought against Louisiana which had laws that distinguished between different kinds of crimes. Quoting the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana: "Additionally, La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) provides in part that “[c]ases in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” If the Court said nothing of other ways of classifying crimes, then that is all that means. It doesn't mean that it's constitutional, it's just that the court doesn't rule on cases and controversies that are not before it.
  - beervirus 7y ago
    For sufficiently minor infractions (e.g. traffic tickets) the line between civil and criminal blurs a bit.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    There are 100s of years of common law and law making trying to sort these kind of questions out. This is what appellate courts and legislatures are for. Written laws, no matter how detailed or precise, will have gaps that the common law fills in. Later, in some cases, legislatures update the law to conform with common law or to repeal/override common law. There is a lot case law looking at which crimes are considered serious. In some cases, crimes explicitly considered non-serious in one jurisdiction may be considered serious in other jurisdictions.
kd5bjo 7y ago
The amendment doesn’t, but this particular opinion does. The court simply wasn’t asked about lesser crimes, and so didn’t consider them or rule about them. If it ever comes up, I’m sure this case will still be strong precedent. As far as hung juries goes, the unaninmity cuts both ways: the entire jury has to agree on acquital for that to be the trial outcome as well. In the case of a hung jury, the whole process failed to come to a conclusion, so everything is the same as if the trial had never occurred: the defendant is still charged and unconvicted, and still has the right to a speedy trial. Because the first trial was voided entirely, double-jeopardy doesn’t apply.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Re: hung juries, I do understand what happens; I'm saying it just doesn't make sense to me. The constitution says: "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; .." On the face of it it seems like complete nonsense to say that you're not placed in jeopardy of life or limb until after the verdict is delivered. Then why were you sitting in that seat being tried for a serious crime? Were you just chopped liver until the jury delivered their verdict? And suddenly when they acquit you then it turns out your life were(/are) was in jeopardy after all? I feel like I must be missing something... As for the opinion, I guess I can understand that if that's the case, but I'd be a little bit surprised if they got a case about non-serious crimes and went "just kidding, the same reasoning applies here too".
  - xenadu02 7y ago
    From a legal point of view it is no different that bribing a member of the jury. You were never in actual jeopardy and the trial is void. You are correct that one could argue that a hung jury is equivalent to acquittal but that isn't current caselaw. It does make me curious how often the state re-tries someone after a hung jury. My guess is there is a large fall-off there. I'm also curious how many times the state can retry the case attempting to reach a verdict. I'm not sure if there is any caselaw covering that.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    This is getting outside my knowledge as a curious amateur, but I believe that the legal system considers the formal charge to be the manifestation of being “put in danger of life or limb,” and the justice system has a duty to resolve that fairly and expeditiously one way or the other. In a sense, the second trial after a mistrial is really a continuation of the first rather than a wholly new proceeding. > I’d be a little bit surprised if they got a case about non-serious crimes and went “just kidding, the same reasoning applies here too”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, except at such a case making it all the way to the top. A lot of research effort goes into drafting these judgements, because they are usually quite long-lived. Any material relating specifically to the treatment of lesser crimes was likely ignored during the initial phases because it was out-of-scope. It’s not just the outcome, but also the reasoning that sets precedent. Any appellate judge is free to draw parallels between the facts here and the facts of the case they are adjudicating, especially if this case is cited by one of the parties (presumably the defence). It’s then the job of the prosecution to describe why this ruling shouldn’t apply, which feels like an extremely hard task given the reasoning presented.
gnopgnip 7y ago
Many constitutional rights have qualifications, and "the law" is both statutory and based on case law. You don't have a constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers for non-serious crimes. A serious offense is generally one with a potential penalty of more than 6 months in jail. Baldwin v New York is one case where this was tested.

vageli 7y ago

> I'm confused at the article. What part of the 6th amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions...") distinguishes "non-serious" crimes from "serious crimes"? They may be referring to felonies, but yeah the wording seems strange to me as well.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Do you know why even felonies would be distinguished here, even if that's what they meant? The amendment literally says "in all criminal prosecutions"... how does "all" turn into "some"?
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  The Supreme Court tends to issue narrow opinions only on the case or controversy (Article III, Section 2) before it. The Court does not decide on matters not before it, so if the issue before it was about "serious crimes". The case was originally brought against Louisiana which had laws that distinguished between different kinds of crimes. Quoting the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana: "Additionally, La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) provides in part that “[c]ases in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” If the Court said nothing of other ways of classifying crimes, then that is all that means. It doesn't mean that it's constitutional, it's just that the court doesn't rule on cases and controversies that are not before it.
- beervirus 7y ago
  For sufficiently minor infractions (e.g. traffic tickets) the line between civil and criminal blurs a bit.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  There are 100s of years of common law and law making trying to sort these kind of questions out. This is what appellate courts and legislatures are for. Written laws, no matter how detailed or precise, will have gaps that the common law fills in. Later, in some cases, legislatures update the law to conform with common law or to repeal/override common law. There is a lot case law looking at which crimes are considered serious. In some cases, crimes explicitly considered non-serious in one jurisdiction may be considered serious in other jurisdictions.

kd5bjo 7y ago

The amendment doesn’t, but this particular opinion does. The court simply wasn’t asked about lesser crimes, and so didn’t consider them or rule about them. If it ever comes up, I’m sure this case will still be strong precedent. As far as hung juries goes, the unaninmity cuts both ways: the entire jury has to agree on acquital for that to be the trial outcome as well. In the case of a hung jury, the whole process failed to come to a conclusion, so everything is the same as if the trial had never occurred: the defendant is still charged and unconvicted, and still has the right to a speedy trial. Because the first trial was voided entirely, double-jeopardy doesn’t apply.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Re: hung juries, I do understand what happens; I'm saying it just doesn't make sense to me. The constitution says: "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; .." On the face of it it seems like complete nonsense to say that you're not placed in jeopardy of life or limb until after the verdict is delivered. Then why were you sitting in that seat being tried for a serious crime? Were you just chopped liver until the jury delivered their verdict? And suddenly when they acquit you then it turns out your life were(/are) was in jeopardy after all? I feel like I must be missing something... As for the opinion, I guess I can understand that if that's the case, but I'd be a little bit surprised if they got a case about non-serious crimes and went "just kidding, the same reasoning applies here too".
- xenadu02 7y ago
  From a legal point of view it is no different that bribing a member of the jury. You were never in actual jeopardy and the trial is void. You are correct that one could argue that a hung jury is equivalent to acquittal but that isn't current caselaw. It does make me curious how often the state re-tries someone after a hung jury. My guess is there is a large fall-off there. I'm also curious how many times the state can retry the case attempting to reach a verdict. I'm not sure if there is any caselaw covering that.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  This is getting outside my knowledge as a curious amateur, but I believe that the legal system considers the formal charge to be the manifestation of being “put in danger of life or limb,” and the justice system has a duty to resolve that fairly and expeditiously one way or the other. In a sense, the second trial after a mistrial is really a continuation of the first rather than a wholly new proceeding. > I’d be a little bit surprised if they got a case about non-serious crimes and went “just kidding, the same reasoning applies here too”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, except at such a case making it all the way to the top. A lot of research effort goes into drafting these judgements, because they are usually quite long-lived. Any material relating specifically to the treatment of lesser crimes was likely ignored during the initial phases because it was out-of-scope. It’s not just the outcome, but also the reasoning that sets precedent. Any appellate judge is free to draw parallels between the facts here and the facts of the case they are adjudicating, especially if this case is cited by one of the parties (presumably the defence). It’s then the job of the prosecution to describe why this ruling shouldn’t apply, which feels like an extremely hard task given the reasoning presented.

gnopgnip 7y ago

Many constitutional rights have qualifications, and "the law" is both statutory and based on case law. You don't have a constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers for non-serious crimes. A serious offense is generally one with a potential penalty of more than 6 months in jail. Baldwin v New York is one case where this was tested.