Jump to content

Ham v. South Carolina

From Wikisource
(Redirected from 409 U.S. 524)
Ham v. South Carolina (1973)
Syllabus

Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.

4710081Ham v. South Carolina — Syllabus1973
Court Documents
Concurrence/Dissents
Douglas
Marshall

Supreme Court of the United States

409 U.S. 524

Ham  v.  South Carolina

Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina

No. 71-5139.  Argued: November 6, 1972 --- Decided: January 17, 1973

Petitioner, a civil rights worker, claims that his trial resulting in his drug conviction (which was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court) was not fair because of the trial court's refusal to examine jurors on voir dire as to possible prejudice arising from the fact that petitioner is a Negro and that he wears a beard.

Held: The trial court's refusal to make any inquiry of the jurors as to racial bias after petitioner's timely request therefor denied petitioner a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its refusal to inquire as to particular bias against beards, after it had made inquiries as to bias in general, was not constitutional error. Pp. 526-529.

256 S.C. 1, 180 S.E.2d 628, reversed.


REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, post, p. 529, and MARSHALL, JJ., post, p. 530, filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.


Jonathan Shapiro argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, and Anthony G. Amsterdam.

Timothy G. Quinn, Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General.