Alt+left-arrow to return from a link

 

Full-text: May 19 2003
Protest zones: “No War for Oil” (October 24 2002)

United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division

 

	)
United States of America	)
)
v.	)
)
Brett A. Bursey	)
	)

Response to Defendant’s Motion for a Jury Trial

The defendant has asserted several arguments as support for his request to have his case tried before a jury. However, none of these argument have merit.

Initially, despite the defendant’s arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court has for more than a century recognized that right to a jury trial simply does not attach to prosecutions for petty offenses. See, e.g., Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888); Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 475-76, 95 S.Ct 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975). While the defendant expresses confusion over the definition of “petty offense,” Section 19 of Title 18 clearly provides:

The offense with which the defendant is charged (18 U.S.C. § 1752) fits directly into this definition: it has a statutory maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, making it a Class B misdemeanor (see 18 U.S.C. § 3581(b)(7)), and it has a maximum statutory fine of {p.2} $5,000, which is no greater than that provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(6). Thus, clearly the defendant is charged with a petty offense, for which there is no right to a jury trial.

Continuing with his inaccurate argument that “the definition of ‘petty’ is not fixed” (Defendant’s Motion, p.6), the defendant seeks to have this court grant or deny a jury trial based on an analysis of the nature of the charged offense in order to determine if it is petty or serious. However, the Supreme Court, after recognizing the difficulties in such an analysis, specifically rejected it:

Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 325 (1996) (citing Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Government agrees with the proposition that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 500 U.S. 466 (2000) and Ring {v.} Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), reflect the importance of the jury to American jurisprudence. However, neither case can or should be read as overruling other longstanding Supreme Court precedent concerning the right to a jury trial in petty offenses, an issue which was neither raised nor even remotely addressed in either Apprendi or Ring. 1  {p.3}

Lastly, the defendant argues that a jury trial is necessary in this case because otherwise “there would be no way to prevent [the enforcement of] § 1752 [from] being used by the Executive for political advantage....” The defendant completely neglects to both explain the basis for this assertion or argue its merits, but he clearly fails to understand or acknowledge that in a non-jury trial, the judge performs the identical function as a jury, which assures the defendant will fully receive whatever protection he believes only a jury can otherwise provide. 2 

For the forgoing reasons, the United Slates asks that the defendant’s motion for a jury trial be denied,

{p.4}

______________________

Certificate of Service

{Case caption, omitted}

I hereby certify that I an an employee in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, and on May 19th 2003, I served one true and correct copy of the attached Response to Defendants Motion for a Jury Trial by depositing the same, in the United States Mail, postage paid, on the following persons(s):

 

Columbia, South Carolina

Footnotes

 1  The defendant’s reliance on Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), which deals with the right to counsel in petty offenses, is misplaced for this same reason.

 2  In fact, a non-jury trial provides the defendant with additional protections since, if asked, the court must make general findings of fact wither orally or in writing, see FRCrP 23(c). A trial jury is required to make such findings by way of special verdict forms in only limited situations.

 

This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

Posted Dec. 14 2003. Updated Dec. 14 2003.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d21.html