Parker v. Gladden (1966)
- Docket
- 81
- Decided
- 1966-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Was Parker’s right to due process violated when a bailiff told two jurors, “Oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty”, and “If you find him guilty and there is anything wrong, the Supreme Court will correct it”? Conclusion: Yes. In a per curiam decision with one dissent, the Court held that the bailiff's statements violated Parker’s right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by an impartial jury. The Court noted that there was no dispute over what the bailiff said, nor any dispute over whether he was subjected to confrontation, cross-examination or other constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the bailiff’s speech was private talk tending to reach the jury by outside influence. The Court rejected the government’s argument that no prejudice was shown because ten members of the jury testified that they did not hear the bailiff’s statement, pointing to one juror’s testimony that she was prejudiced by the bailiff’s statements. The Court also noted the official character of the bailiff's role with the court. Justice John Harlan dissented, disagreeing that the Sixth Amendment was directly applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. He rejected the Court’s assumption that jurors must be absolutely insulated from all expressions of opinion on the merits of cases, citing cases where the Court refused to overthrow a verdict despite jury contact with outside information. He also questioned the evidence of Mrs. Inwards’ prejudice, ascribing her claims of prejudicial influence to post-conviction guilt.