Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Parker v. Gladden
 | |
| Parker v. Gladden | |
| Reference: 385 U.S. 363 | |
| Term: 1966 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: November 9, 1966 Decided: December 12, 1966 | |
| Outcome | |
| Oregon Supreme Court reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Earl Warren • Hugo Black • William Douglas • Tom Clark • William Brennan • Potter Stewart • Byron White • Abe Fortas | |
| Dissenting | |
| John Harlan II | |
Parker v. Gladden is a case decided on December 12, 1966, by the United States Supreme Court that incorporated the right to an impartial jury of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to states. The case concerned a bailiff attempting to influence a jury's opinion of the defendant in a case. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court.[1][2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that individuals' Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is applicable in state courts. To read more about the impact of Parker v. Gladden click here.
Background
Lee E. A. Parker was convicted of second-degree murder by the Multnomah County Circuit Court on May 19, 1961, and sentenced to serve up to life in prison. He appealed his conviction to the Oregon Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision. Parker later discovered that, during his trial, the bailiff told Mrs. Gattman, an alternate juror: "Oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty." The bailiff's statement was overheard by two other jurors, Mrs. Inwards and Mrs. Drake. Parker enlisted the help of his wife to contact the jurors regarding the bailiff's comments. Mrs. Gattman testified that she was sure of what the bailiff had said and was displeased with the verdict. Mrs. Inwards testified that the bailiff's statement may have impacted her decision.
Upon Parker's appeal for post-conviction relief, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the bailiff's statement had not violated Parker's constitutional rights.[1][2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on November 9, 1966. The case was decided on December 12, 1966.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 8-1 to reverse the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. The court issued a per curiam decision, meaning that the decision was published as a decision of the court with authorship not indicated. Justice John Harlan II wrote a dissenting opinion.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
The court argued, in a per curiam decision, that the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is incorporated to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court contended that the bailiff spoke to jurors in a private setting in an attempt to influence their decision, which did not allow for the defendant's counsel to confront and cross-examine the bailiff. This action violated Parker's constitutional right to a fair trial.[2]
| “ | We believe that the statements of the bailiff to the jurors are controlled by the command of the Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It guarantees that 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . trial, by an impartial jury . . . [and] be confronted with the witnesses against him. . . .' As we said in Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466, 379 U. S. 472-473 (1965), 'the 'evidence developed' against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant's right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel.'
|
” |
| —majority opinion in Parker v. Gladden[2] | ||
Dissenting opinion
Justice John Harlan II, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not make the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states. He also posited that overturning Parker's conviction would have a far-reaching and negative impact on other similar cases.[2]
| “ | The potentialities of today's decision may go far beyond what, I am sure, the Court intends. Certainly the Court does not wish to encourage convicted felons to 'intimidate, beset and harass,' Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 346 U. S. 178, a discharged jury in an effort to establish possible grounds for a new trial. Our courts have always been alert to protect the sanctity of the jury process. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264; see Castaldi v. United States, 251 F. Supp. 681. But, in allowing Parker to overturn his conviction on the basis of what are no more than inconsequential incidents in an otherwise constitutionally flawless proceeding, the Court encourages others to follow his example in pursuing the jury and may be thought by some to commit federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings to interrogate the jury upon the mere allegation that a prejudicial remark has reached the ears of one of its members. Remmer v. United States, 347 U. S. 227. To any such result, I cannot subscribe.[3] | ” |
| —John Harlan II, dissenting opinion in Parker v. Gladden[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Incorporation
Parker v. Gladden established that the right to an impartial jury of the Sixth Amendment applies to state court criminal proceedings.[2]
The decision in this case was responsible for incorporating the right to an impartial jury to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation is the process of binding a fundamental right onto the states through a Supreme Court decision.[4]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Parker v. Gladden," accessed August 30, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Justia, "Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)," accessed August 30, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Bill of Rights Institute, "Incorporation," accessed August 30, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
