Criminal Proceedings to Which the Guarantee Applies .--Although the Sixth Amendment provision does not differentiate among types of criminal proceedings in which the right to a jury trial is or is not present, the Court has always excluded petty offenses from the guarantee in federal courts, defining the line between petty and serious offenses either by the maximum punishment available 65 or by the nature of the offense. 66 This line has been adhered to in the application of the Sixth Amendment to the States 67 and the Court has now held ''that no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where im prisonment for more than six months is authorized.'' 68 A defendant who is prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses, however, does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial, even if the aggregate of sentences authorized for the offense exceeds six months. Supp.5 The Court has also made some changes in the meaning attached to the term ''criminal proceeding.'' Previously, it had been applied only to situations in which a person has been accused of an offense by information or presentment. 69 Thus, a civil action to collect statutory penalties and punitive damages, because not technically criminal, has been held to implicate no right to jury trial. 70 But more recently the Court has held denationalization to be punishment which Congress may not impose without adhering to the guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, 71 and the same type of analysis could be used with regard to other sanctions. In a long line of cases, the Court had held that no constitutional right to jury trial existed in trials of criminal contempt. 72 But in Bloom v. Illinois, 73 the Court announced that ''[o]ur deliberations have convinced us . . . that serious contempts are so nearly like other serious crimes that they are subject to the jury trial provisions of the Constitution . . . and that the traditional rule is constitutionally infirm insofar as it permits other than petty contempts to be tried without honoring a demand for a jury trial.'' At least in state systems and probably in the federal system as well, there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in juvenile proceedings. 74 In capital cases there is no requirement that a jury impose the death penalty 75 or make the factual findings upon which a death sentence must rest. 76   

Footnotes

[Footnote 65] District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937); Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888).

[Footnote 66] District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63 (1930).

[Footnote 67] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 159 -62 (1968); Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968).

[Footnote 68] Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69 (1970). Justices Black and Douglas would have required a jury trial in all criminal proceedings in which the sanction imposed bears the indicia of criminal punishment. Id. at 74 (concurring); Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 384 , 386 (1966) (dissenting). Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harlan and Stewart objected to setting this limitation at six months for the States, preferring to give them greater leeway. Baldwin, supra, at 76; Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 117 , 143 (1970) (dissenting). No jury trial was required when the trial judge suspended sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969). There is a presumption that offenses carrying a maximum imprisonment of six months or less are ''petty,'' although it is possible that such an offense could be pushed into the ''serious'' category if the legislature tacks on onerous penalties not involving incarceration. No jury trial is required, however, when the maximum sentence is six months in jail, a fine not to exceed $1,000, a 90-day driver's license suspension, and attendance at an alcohol abuse education course. Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 542 - 44 (1989).

[Footnote 5 (1996 Supplement)] Lewis v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 2163 (1996).

[Footnote 69] United States v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475, 481 (1896).

[Footnote 70] Id. See also Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103 (1909).

[Footnote 71] Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).

[Footnote 72] E.g., Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 183 -87 (1958), and cases cited; United States v. Burnett, 376 U.S. 681, 692 -700 (1964), and cases cited. A Court plurality in Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966), held, asserting the Court's supervisory power over the lower federal courts, that criminal contempt sentences in excess of six months imprisonment could not be imposed without a jury trial or adequate waiver.

[Footnote 73]   391 U.S. 194, 198 (1968). Justices Harlan and Stewart dissented. Id. at 215. As in other cases, the Court drew the line between serious and petty offenses at six months, but because, unlike other offenses, no maximum punishments are usually provided for contempts it indicated the actual penalty imposed should be looked to. Id. at 211. And see Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968). The distinction between criminal and civil contempt may be somewhat more elusive. International Union, UMW v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (fines levied on the union were criminal in nature where the conduct did not occur in the court's presence, the court's injunction required compliance with an entire code of conduct, and the fines assessed were not compensatory).

[Footnote 74] McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).

[Footnote 75] Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 459 (1984).

[Footnote 76] Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U.S. 638, 640 -41 (1989) (per curiam) (''the Sixth Amendment does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by the jury''); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990) (appellate court may reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors and uphold imposition of death penalty even though jury relied on an invalid aggravating factor); Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) (judge may make requisite findings as to existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances).

Sixth Amendment Part 1 Table of Contents *
Sixth Amendment Text