Stefano v. Woods Carcerano v. Gladden, Nos. 559

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; HARLAN; DOUGLAS
Citation20 L.Ed.2d 1308,88 S.Ct. 2093,392 U.S. 631
Docket Number941,Nos. 559
Decision Date17 June 1968
PartiesSam DeSTEFANO v. WOODS, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. Frank Anthony CARCERANO v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden

392 U.S. 631
88 S.Ct. 2093
20 L.Ed.2d 1308
Sam DeSTEFANO

v.

WOODS, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. Frank Anthony CARCERANO v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden.

Nos. 559, 941.
June 17, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1968.

See 89 S.Ct. 67.

Anna R. Lavin, for petitioner Sam DeStefano.

John J. Stamos and Elmer C. Kissane, for respondent Woods.

Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Oregon, and David H. Blunt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Clarence T. Gladden.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Carcerano was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced, on May 11, 1962, to life imprisonment. The Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 11, permits a jury

Page 632

to convict in noncapital cases if 10 of the 12 jurors support conviction. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction. State v. Carcerano, 238 Or. 208, 390 P.2d 923, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 923, 85 S.Ct. 921, 13 L.Ed.2d 807. In 1967, petitioner sought collateral relief under Oregon's post-conviction statute. The sole ground relied upon was that the State and Federal Constitutions were violated when the jury was told it could return a verdict of guilty even though the members did not unanimously favor that verdict. This issue had not been raised by petitioner on his direct appeal. The Oregon Supreme Court denied relief.

Petitioner DeStefano was found in criminal contempt of an Illinois court and sentenced to three concurrent one-year terms.1 After affirmance by the Illinois Supreme Court and denial of certiorari by this Court, 385 U.S. 989, 87 S.Ct. 594, 17 L.Ed.2d 450, petitioner unsuccessfully sought state collateral relief and then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Petitioner's contention was that he was unconstitutionally denied trial by jury. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the Constitution did not require jury trial for state criminal contempt proceedings.

In Duncan v. State of Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, we held that the States cannot deny a request for jury trial in serious criminal cases, and in Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522, that the right to jury trial extends to trials for serious criminal contempts. Duncan left open the question of

Page 633

the continued vitality of the statement in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586, 20 S.Ct. 448, 450, 44 L.Ed. 597, that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial includes a right not to be convicted except by a unanimous verdict. Both Duncan and Bloom left open the question whether a contempt punished by imprisonment for one year is, by virtue of that sentence, a sufficiently serious matter to require that a request for jury trial be honored. These two issues posed in Nos. 941 and 559 must be considered at this time only if the decisions in Duncan and Bloom apply retroactively. We hold, however, that Duncan v. State of Louisiana and Bloom v. State of Illinois should receive only prospective application. Accordingly, the denials of collateral relief to petitioners must be affirmed regardless of whether, for cases to which the rules announced in Duncan and Bloom apply, the Fourteenth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts and affords a right to jury trial for criminal contempts punished by imprisonment for one year.

In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, the Court stated the considerations that affect the judgment whether a case reversing prior doctrines in the area of the criminal law should be applied only prospectively:

'(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
271 practice notes
  • People v. Fields, Cr. 21126
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 29, 1983
    ...692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690.) At the time of Witherspoon's trial, the Sixth Amendment was not applicable to the states. (DeStefano v. Woods (1968) 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308; Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491.) This court has previously noted t......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 26, 1971
    ...87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, in regard to the presence of counsel at police lineups; DeStefano v. Woods, 394 U.S. 631, [160 Conn. 352] 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308, applying to Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, and Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.C......
  • People v. Myers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 2, 1987
    ...clause incorporated the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guaranty--had been given only prospective application in DeStefano v. Woods (1968) 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308, concluded that Taylor should similarly be applied only The Daniel court explained: "The three relevant factor......
  • Hovey v. Superior Court, S.F. 24093
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 28, 1980
    ...thereby precluding its application to state trials, such as Witherspoon's, which had preceded Duncan. (DeStefano v. Woods (1968) 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d It would appear that the constitutional principles being applied were those of due process, as seen through the filter of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
270 cases
  • People v. Fields, Cr. 21126
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 29, 1983
    ...692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690.) At the time of Witherspoon's trial, the Sixth Amendment was not applicable to the states. (DeStefano v. Woods (1968) 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308; Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491.) This court has previously noted t......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 26, 1971
    ...87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, in regard to the presence of counsel at police lineups; DeStefano v. Woods, 394 U.S. 631, [160 Conn. 352] 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308, applying to Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, and Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.C......
  • People v. Myers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 2, 1987
    ...clause incorporated the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guaranty--had been given only prospective application in DeStefano v. Woods (1968) 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308, concluded that Taylor should similarly be applied only The Daniel court explained: "The three relevant factor......
  • Hovey v. Superior Court, S.F. 24093
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 28, 1980
    ...thereby precluding its application to state trials, such as Witherspoon's, which had preceded Duncan. (DeStefano v. Woods (1968) 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d It would appear that the constitutional principles being applied were those of due process, as seen through the filter of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT