391 U.S. 145 (1968)
In October 1966, nineteen-year-old Gary Duncan stopped his car on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, after seeing his two younger Negro cousins talking with four white boys near a formerly all-white high school that had recently experienced racial incidents.1 Duncan approached the group, spoke with the white boys, encouraged his cousins to leave, and was about to drive away when a dispute arose over whether he had slapped or merely touched one of the white boys on the elbow.2
At his trial in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, the white boys and a white onlooker testified that Duncan had slapped Herman Landry, while Duncan and his cousins testified that he had only touched the boy.3 The trial judge found Duncan guilty of simple battery beyond a reasonable doubt.4
Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and a three-hundred-dollar fine.5 Duncan requested a jury trial, but the trial judge denied the request because the Louisiana Constitution provides for jury trials only in cases where capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed.6 Duncan was convicted by the judge alone and sentenced to sixty days in the parish prison and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars.7
Duncan sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which denied his application for a writ of certiorari.8 He then petitioned the United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), alleging that the denial of a jury trial violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.9 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument along with a related case.10
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in all state criminal cases that would be covered by the Sixth Amendment if tried in federal court?11
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which, if tried in a federal court, would come within the Sixth Amendment's guarantee because the right to jury trial in serious criminal cases is a fundamental right protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.12
Yes. Trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice.13 The Fourteenth Amendment therefore protects the right in state prosecutions for serious crimes that would trigger the Sixth Amendment in federal court.14 Duncan was tried and convicted without a jury for simple battery, a crime carrying up to two years in prison.15 The denial of his request for a jury trial violated the Fourteenth Amendment.16
The Court reached this conclusion after examining the deep historical roots of jury trial in English and American law.17 It rejected prior dicta suggesting that jury trial is not essential to due process.18 The right prevents government oppression and ensures community participation in determining guilt or innocence.19
The Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee the right to a jury trial in all such state criminal cases.20
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Douglas
Justice Black concurred in the result.21 He agreed that the right to trial by jury in criminal cases is a fundamental right made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.22 Black has long maintained that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States.23
He rejected the selective incorporation approach as too narrow and criticized the view that due process is merely an evolving concept of fundamental fairness determined by judges.24 Black argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a clear textual basis for applying the Bill of Rights to the States.25 He emphasized that the sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to make the first eight Amendments applicable to state action.26
Justice Douglas joined the opinion of the Court and the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black.27 By joining both writings he endorsed the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to jury trial in serious state criminal cases. Douglas's consistent position favoring full incorporation of the Bill of Rights is reflected in this joinder, confirming that protections such as jury trial must be respected by the States in serious prosecutions.
His participation underscores that the right to jury trial ranks among the fundamental safeguards the Fourteenth Amendment extends against state action to prevent governmental oppression.28
Whether a crime punishable by up to two years' imprisonment is a serious offense for which the defendant is entitled to a jury trial?29
The penalty authorized for a particular crime is of major relevance in determining whether it is serious or petty. A crime punishable by two years in prison is a serious crime for which the defendant is entitled to a jury trial.30
Yes. Louisiana law made simple battery punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a three-hundred-dollar fine.31 Duncan was charged with this crime and denied a jury trial.32 Because the authorized penalty makes the offense serious, he was entitled to a jury trial under the Fourteenth Amendment.33 The Court held that crimes carrying a possible two-year sentence are not petty offenses.34
The penalty authorized by statute serves as a gauge of the crime's seriousness.35 Crimes punishable by no more than six months are generally petty.36 Louisiana's two-year maximum placed simple battery well into the serious category.37 The actual sentence of sixty days did not change the analysis because the legislative judgment expressed in the authorized penalty controls.38
A crime punishable by up to two years' imprisonment is a serious offense for which the defendant is entitled to a jury trial.39
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Stewart
Justice Harlan dissented.40 He argued that the right to a jury trial is not a fundamental aspect of due process of law.41 The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the States to provide jury trials in all criminal cases.42
Harlan maintained that due process requires only fundamental fairness and does not impose nationwide uniformity or federal procedural rules on the States.43 He criticized the incorporation approach as historically unsupported and inconsistent with federalism.44 Harlan would have affirmed the Louisiana judgment because nothing in the record suggested that Duncan's particular trial was unfair.45
He emphasized that States should retain flexibility to experiment with criminal procedures suited to local conditions.46