Citation network
Ballew Vs. Georgia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 223 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Ballew v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. 223 (1978) Ballew v. GeorgiaSearch
-
pursuant to Georgia law, and convicted. Though a criminal trial by a six-person jury is permissible under Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Our resolution of the issue requires an application of principles enunciated in Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
the presence of the two convictions. In its consideration of the five-person jury issue, the court noted that Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Court that a five-person jury was constitutionally inadequate, the Court of Appeals considered itself bound by Sanders v. StateSearch
-
where the constitutionality of the five-person jury had been upheld. The court also cited the earlier case of McIntyre v. StateSearch
-
II The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury in all state nonpetty criminal cases. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
See Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
York, 399 U. S. 66 , 399 U. S. 68 -69 (1970) (opinion of WHITE, J.). In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
See Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
of guilt and by the application of the common sense of laymen who, as jurors, consider the case. Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
any state interest counterbalances and justifies the disruption so as to preserve its constitutionality. Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
and Colgrove v. BattinSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
Carter v. JurySearch
-
Comm'n, 396 U. S. 320 , 396 U. S. 330 (1970), quoting Strauder v. WestSearch
-
when evaluating jury function and performance. IV While we adhere to, and reaffirm our holding in Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
argument that a reduction to five does not offend important Sixth Amendment interests. First, its reliance on Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
is that the purpose and functions of the jury do not vary significantly with the importance of the crime. In Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
The need for an effective jury here must be judged by the same standards announced and applied in Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
by the five-person panel. Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of race or some other improper classification. See Carter v. JurySearch
-
the number of jurors below six will not affect to a constitutional degree the functioning of juries in criminal trials. v. WithSearch
-
The Amendment's provision as to trial by jury is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Nobles v. StateSearch
-
of its size, the Georgia jury in a criminal trial, in order to convict, must do so by unanimous vote. Ball v. StateSearch
-
The Court rejected the assumption, made in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
U. S. 343 , 170 U. S. 349 (1898), and certain later cases, see Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
Rassmussen v. UnitedSearch
-
and Maxwell v. DowSearch
-
Pabst, Statistical Studies of the Costs of Six-Man v. Twelve-ManSearch
-
An Evaluation of Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
We also note that THE CHIEF JUSTICE did not shrink from the use of empirical data in Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
when the data were used to support the constitutionality of the six-person criminal jury, or in Colgrove v. BattinSearch
-
See Faust., Group versus IndividualSearch
-
Reanalyzed, 7 U.Mich.J.L.Reform 520 (1974). The criticized study was cited and relied upon by the Court in Colgrove v. BattinSearch
-
An Empirical Study of Trial Results, 6 U.Mich. J.L.Reform 671 (1973). This also was cited and relied upon in Colgrove v. BattinSearch
-
and common sense is important in obscenity trials, where juries must define and apply local standards. See Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Pabst, Statistical Studies of the Costs of Six-Man v. Twelve-ManSearch
-
concurring. While I join MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN s opinion, I have not altered the views I expressed in Marks v. UnitedSearch
-
agree, however, that every feature of jury trial practice must be the same in both federal and state courts. Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
to my belief that Ga.Code Ann. 26-2101 (1972) is overbroad, and therefore facially unconstitutional. See Sanders v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 931 (1976) (dissent from denial of certiorari). See also Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ballew v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial