Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Brown v. New Jersey
175 U.S. 172
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1899-11-20
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- “The right to challenge is the right to reject, not to select, a juror.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Brown v. New Jersey. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 218 opinions
Headnotes
- Constitutional Law — Fourteenth Amendment — Applicability of Bill of Rights to States The first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution contain no restrictions on the powers of the states, but were intended to operate solely on the federal government. 175 U.S. at 174
- Constitutional Law — State Authority over Judicial Procedure A state has full control over the procedure in its courts, both in civil and criminal cases, subject only to the qualification that such procedure must not work a denial of fundamental rights or conflict with specific and applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution; the state is not tied down by any provision of the Federal Constitution to the practice and procedure which existed at the common law, and may make such changes as may be necessary. 175 U.S. at 174-75
- Constitutional Law — Due Process Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves the principles of liberty and justice, is due process of law; law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process, and when secured by the law of the state the constitutional requirement is satisfied.
- Constitutional Law — Due Process Trial by a struck jury, empanelled in accordance with a state statute valid under the state constitution, does not trespass upon any fundamental right of the defendant and constitutes due process of law; such a procedure gives the defendant a reasonable opportunity to ascertain the qualifications of proposed jurors and to protect himself against any supposed prejudices in the mind of any particular individual called as a juror, and is a fair and reasonable way of securing an impartial jury. 175 U.S. at 175
- Constitutional Law — Due Process The purpose of criminal procedure is not to enable the defendant to select jurors, but to secure an impartial jury; the right to challenge is the right to reject, not to select a juror, and if from those who remain an impartial jury is obtained, the constitutional right of the accused is maintained.
- Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A state may make different arrangements for trials under different circumstances of even the same class of offenses without violating the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment; the amendment does not prohibit legislation limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate, but merely requires that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.
- Constitutional Law — Equal Protection Where a state statute allows fewer peremptory challenges when a struck jury is ordered than are permitted in a trial before an ordinary jury, but the same number of challenges is permitted in all cases in which a struck jury is ordered, and either party may apply for a struck jury with the matter determined by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion, the statute does not deny the equal protection of the laws; the fact that in a given case the court's discretion in awarding a trial by a struck jury was improperly exercised may present a matter for consideration on appeal, but does not amount to a constitutional violation. 175 U.S. at 176-77
- Constitutional Law — State Court Interpretation of State Constitution Where the highest court of a state has held that statutory provisions for a struck jury are not in conflict with the constitution of that state, the question is foreclosed in the Supreme Court of the United States by that decision. 175 U.S. at 173
- Constitutional Law — Grand Jury — State Criminal Procedure While at the common law an indictment by the grand jury was an essential preliminary to trial for felony, it is within the power of a state to abolish the grand jury entirely and proceed by information. 175 U.S. at 175
- Constitutional Law — Criminal Procedure — Struck Jury for Murder A struck jury that may never have been resorted to in trials for murder at common law cannot be deemed essentially bad when applied to that offense if it is appropriate for and used in criminal trials for other offenses. 175 U.S. at 175
BROWNv. NEW JERSEY,175 U.S. 172(1899)
20 S.Ct. 77
BROWNv. NEW JERSEY.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER OF HUDSON COUNTY, STATE OF NEW
JERSEY.
No. 290.
Argued October 30, 1899.
Decided November 20, 1899.
THE plaintiff in error was, on October 5, 1898, in the Court
of Oyer and Terminer of Hudson County, New Jersey, found guilty
of the crime of murder. On March 6, 1899, the judgment of the
Court of Oyer and Terminer was affirmed by the New Jersey Court
of Errors and Appeals, and the case being remanded to the trial
court, plaintiff in error was, on April 19, 1899, sentenced to be
hanged. The jury which tried the case was what is known to the
New Jersey statutes as a "struck jury," authority for which is
found in c. 237, Laws of New Jersey, 1898, p. 894. Sections 75
and 76 read as follows:
"SEC. 75. The Supreme Court, Court of Oyer and Terminer and
Court of Quarter Sessions, respectively, or any judge thereof,
may, on motion in behalf of the State, or defendant in any
indictment, order a jury to be struck for the trial thereof, and
upon making said order the jury shall be struck, served and
returned in the same manner as in case of struck juries ordered
in the trial of civil causes, except as herein otherwise
provided.
"SEC. 76. When a rule for a struck jury shall be entered in
any criminal case, the court granting such rule may, on motion of
the prosecutor, or of the defendant, or on its own motion, select
from the persons qualified to serve as jurors in and for
Page 174
the county in which any indictment was found, whether the names
of such persons appear on the sheriff's book of persons qualified
to serve as jurors in and for such county or not, ninety-six
names, with their places of abode, from which the prosecutor and
the defendant shall each strike twenty-four names in the usual
way, and the remaining forty-eight names shall be placed by the
sheriff in the box, in the presence of the court, and from the
names so placed in the box the jury shall be drawn in the usual
way."
By sections 80 and 81 of that statute, where there is no
"struck jury" and the party is on trial for murder, he is
entitled to twenty peremptory challenges and the State to twelve,
but in the case of a "struck jury" each party is allowed only
five peremptory challenges.
The first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution contain no restrictions on the powers of the State, but were intended to operate solely on Federal Government.Barronv.Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243;Foxv.Ohio, 5 How. 410;Twitchellv.Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321;United Statesv.Cruikshank,92 U.S. 542,552;Spiesv.Illinois,123 U.S. 131;In reSawyer,124 U.S. 200,219;Eilenbeckerv.District Court ofPlymouth County,134 U.S. 31;Davisv.Texas,139 U.S. 651;McElvainev.Brush,142 U.S. 155;Thoringtonv.Montgomery,147 U.S. 490;Millerv.Texas,153 U.S. 535.Page 175
The State has full control over the procedure in its courts, both in civil and criminal cases, subject only to the qualification that such procedure must not work a denial of fundamental rights or conflict with specific and applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution.Ex parte Reggel,114 U.S. 642;Iowa Central Railwayv.Iowa,160 U.S. 389;Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railroadv.Chicago,166 U.S. 226. "The Fourteenth Amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two States separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such right. Each State prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding."Missouriv.Lewis,101 U.S. 22,31.
The State is not tied down by any provision of the Federal Constitution to the practice and procedure which existed at the common law. Subject to the limitations heretofore named it may avail itself of the wisdom gathered by the experience of the century to make such changes as may be necessary. For instance, while at the common law an indictment by the grand jury was an essential preliminary to trial for felony, it is within the power of a State to abolish the grand jury entirely and proceed by information.Hurtadov.California,110 U.S. 516.
In providing for a trial by a struck jury, empanelled in accordance with the provisions of the New Jersey statute, no fundamental right of the defendant is trespassed upon. The manner of selection is one calculated to secure an impartial jury, and the purpose of criminal procedure is not to enable the defendant to select jurors, but to secure an impartial jury. "The accused cannot complain if he is still tried by an impartial jury. He can demand nothing more.Northern Pacific Railroadv.Herbert,116 U.S. 642. The right to challenge is the right to reject, not to select a juror. If from those who remain an impartial jury is obtained, the constitutional right of the accused is maintained."Hayesv.Missouri,120 U.S. 68,71.Page 176
Due process and equal protection of the laws are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this amendment operates to restrict the powers of the State, and if trial by a struck jury conflicts with either of these specific provisions it cannot be sustained. A perfectly satisfactory definition of due process may perhaps not be easily stated. InHurtadov.California,110 U.S. 516,537, Mr. Justice Matthews, after reviewing previous declarations, said: "It follows that any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law." InLeeperv.Texas,139 U.S. 462,468, Chief Justice Fuller declared "that law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process, and when secured by the law of the State the constitutional requirement is satisfied." Within any and all definitions trial by a struck jury in the manner prescribed must, when authorized by a statute, valid under the constitution of the State, be adjudged due process. A struck jury was not unknown to the common law, though, as urged by counsel for plaintiff in error, it may never have been resorted to in trials for murder. But if appropriate for and used in criminal trials for certain offences, it could hardly be deemed essentially bad when applied to other offences. It gives the defendant a reasonable opportunity to ascertain the qualifications of proposed jurors, and to protect himself against any supposed prejudices in the mind of any particular individual called as a juror. Whether better or not than any other method, it is certainly a fair and reasonable way of securing an impartial jury, was provided for by the laws of the State, and that is all that due process in this respect requires.
It is said that the equal protection of the laws was denied because the defendant was not given the same number of peremptory challenges that he would have had in a trial before an ordinary jury. In the latter case he would have been entitled under the statute to twenty peremptory challenges, but when a struck jury is ordered he is given only five.Page 177But that a State may make different arrangements for trials under different circumstances of even the same class of offences, has been already settled by this court. Thus, inMissouriv.Lewis,101 U.S. 22, in certain parts of the State an appeal was given from a final judgment of a trial court to the Supreme Court of the State, while in other parts this was denied; and it was held that a State might establish one system of law in one portion of its territory and a different system in another, and that in so doing there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, inHayesv.Missouri,120 U.S. 68, it appeared that a certain number of peremptory challenges was allowed in cities of over 100,000 inhabitants, while a less number was permitted in other portions of the State. It was held that that was no denial of the equal protection of the laws, the court saying, page 71: "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed, or by the territory within which it is to operate. It merely requires that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed."
It is true that here there is no territorial distribution, but in all cases in which a struck jury is ordered the same number of challenges is permitted, as similarly in all cases in which the trial is by an ordinary jury. Either party, State or defendant, may apply for a struck jury, and the matter is one which is determined by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion. There is no mere arbitrary power in this respect, any more than in the granting or refusing of a continuance. The fact that in one case the plaintiff or defendant is awarded a continuance and in another is refused does not make in either a denial of the equal protection of the laws. That in any given case the discretion of the court in awarding a trial by a struck jury was improperly exercised may perhaps present a matter for consideration on appeal, but it amounts to nothing more.
Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment isAffirmed,
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurred in the result.Page 178