Ballew v. Georgia - 435 U.S. 223, 98 S. Ct. 1029 (1978)

Rule:

The purpose and functioning of the jury in a criminal trial is seriously impaired, and to a constitutional degree, by a reduction in size to below six members.

Facts:

Claude Davis Ballew, who was charged with committing a misdemeanor, was tried before a five-person jury pursuant to Georgia law, and convicted. Though a criminal trial by a six-person jury is permissible under Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, Ballew maintains that a trial before a jury of less than six people is unconstitutional, a contention that the Georgia courts rejected.

Issue:

Did a state criminal trial to a jury of only five persons deprive Ballew of the right to trial by jury guaranteed to him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

 The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision rejecting, inter alia, a contention by Ballew that the use of a five-member jury deprived him of his U.S. Const. amend. VI and XIV right to a trial by jury. The Court, applying the principles enunciated in a previous holding and scholarly writings, found that significant questions were raised about the wisdom and constitutionality of a reduction in jury size below six jurors. In particular, recent empirical data suggested that progressively smaller juries were less likely to foster effective group deliberation. The data also raised doubts about the accuracy of the results achieved by smaller panels. The data suggested that the verdicts of jury deliberation in criminal cases would vary as juries became smaller and that the variance amounted to an imbalance to the detriment of the defense. Representation of minority groups in the community was adversely affected by smaller juries. Because the Court found no significant advantage to the State in reducing the number of jurors from six to five, trial on criminal charges before a five-member jury was deemed to have deprived Ballew of his constitutional right to trial by jury.