Is there a constitutional right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with driving under the influence of alcohol?
II. CASE SUMMARY:
A. Background:
"Under Nevada law, a first-time offender convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) faces up to six months of incarceration or, in the alternative, 48 hours of community work while identifiably dressed as a DUI offender. In addition, the offender must pay a fine of up to $1,000, attend an alcohol abuse education course, and lose his license for 90 days. Penalties increase for repeat offenders.
Petitioners, first-time offenders, were charged with DUI in separate incidents. The Municipal Court denied each petitioner's demand for a jury trial. On appeal, the Judicial District Court again denied petitioner Blanton's request but granted petitioner Fraley's. The Nevada Supreme Court remanded both cases, concluding that the Federal Constitution does not guarantee a right to a jury trial for a DUI offense.
On certiorari the Supreme Court affirmed.
B. Counsel of Record:
ACLU Side (Petitioner/Appellant)
Opposing Side (Respondent/Appellee)
Unavailable
Unavailable
C. The Arguments:
ACLU Side (Petitioner/Appellant)
Opposing Side (Respondent/Appellee)
Unavailable
Unavailable
III. AMICI CURIAE:
ACLU Side (Petitioner/Appellant)
Opposing Side (Respondent/Appellee)
Brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed by Dan C. Bowen and John A. Powell filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.
John J. Graves, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was John G. Watkins.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Fried, Acting Assistant Attorney General Dennis, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, Michael R. Lazerwitz, and Louis M. Fischer; for the State of Nevada by Brian McKay, Attorney General, and Brian Randall Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General; for the State of New Jersey by W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, and Boris Moczula, Larry R. Etzweiler, and Cherrie Madden Black, Deputy Attorneys General; for the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, by George F. Ogilvie; and for the Louisiana District Attorneys Association by Dorothy A. Pendergast.
Mark L. Zalaoras argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roy A. Woofter.
IV. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION:
"There is no Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury for persons charged under Nevada law with DUI. This Court has long held that petty crimes or offenses are not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision. The most relevant criterion for determining the seriousness of an offense is the severity of the maximum authorized penalty fixed by the legislature. Under this approach, when an offense carries a maximum prison term of six months or less, as DUI does under Nevada law, it is presumed to be petty unless the defendant can show that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense is a "serious" one.
Under this test, it is clear that the Nevada Legislature does not view DUI as a serious offense. It is immaterial that a first-time DUI offender may face a minimum prison term or that some offenders may receive the maximum prison sentence, because even the maximum prison term does not exceed the constitutional demarcation point of six months. Likewise, the 90-day license suspension is irrelevant if it runs concurrently with the prison term. The 48 hours of community service in the specified clothing, while a source of embarrassment, is less embarrassing and less onerous than six months in jail. Also, the $1,000 fine is well below the $5,000 level set by Congress in its most recent definition of a petty offense, while increased penalties for recidivists are commonplace and are not faced by petitioners."
The Nevada Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional right to a jury trial for a DUI offense and on certiorari the US Supreme Court affirmed.
Justice Vote: 0 Pro vs. 9 Con (Unanimous Decision for Respondent/Appellee)
Marshall, T.Con (Wrote majority opinion)
Kennedy, A. Con (Joined majority opinion)
Rehnquist, W. Con (Joined majority opinion)
White, B. Con (Joined majority opinion)
Blackmun, H. Con (Joined majority opinion)
O'Connor, S.D. Con (Joined majority opinion)
Scalia, A. Con (Joined majority opinion)
Stevens, J.P. Con (Joined majority opinion)
Brennan, W. Con (Joined majority opinion)
V. A WIN OR LOSS FOR THE ACLU?
The ACLU, as amicus curiae, urged reversal of the State Supreme Court's Judgment; the Supreme Court affirmed in a 0-9 vote, giving the ACLU an apparent loss.
RSS
Share
Email
Print