Reynolds v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about the 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case about polygamy and religious duty as a defense to criminal prosecution. For the 1952 case about the State Secrets Privilege, see United States v. Reynolds.

Reynolds v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued October 1878

Decided October 1878

Full case name:	George Reynolds v. United States
Prior history:	Defendant convicted, District Court for the 3rd Judicial District of the Territory of Utah; conviction upheld by Supreme Court of the Utah Territory

Holding

Religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment

Court membership

Chief Justice: Morrison Waite

Associate Justices: Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Joseph Philo Bradley, Ward Hunt and John Marshall Harlan

Case opinions

Majority by: Waite

Joined by: Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Strong, Bradley, Hunt, Harlan

Dissent by: Field

Laws applied

Sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in the Utah Territory.

Before the Supreme Court, Reynolds argued against his conviction for bigamy should be overturned on six issues. These included that his grand jury had not been legal, that challenges of certain jurors were improperly overruled, testimony by Amelia Jane Schofield was not permissible as it was under another indictment, and most important that it was his religious duty to marry multiple times.

1 Prior history
2 The bench
- 2.1 Opinion
- 2.2 Concurring
3 The case
- 3.1 Religious Duty argument
- 3.2 Other arguments
4 Reaction
5 References
6 See also
7 External link

[edit] Prior history

Reynolds was indicted in the District Court for the 3rd Judicial District of the Territory of Utah under sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes, which stated:

'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'

After being found guilty by the lower court, Reynolds appealed to the Supreme Court of the Utah Territory, which upheld the conviction.

[edit] The bench

The makeup of the Supreme Court and their opinions were:

[edit] Opinion

Written by: Chief Justice Morrison Waite
- Joined by: Justices Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Joseph Philo Bradley, Ward Hunt and John Marshall Harlan

[edit] Concurring

Written by: Justice Stephen Johnson Field (dissenting only on the admission of the evidence of Amelia Jane Schofield)

[edit] The case

[edit] Religious Duty argument

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if we allowed polygamy, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.

It is worth noting that the version of Jefferson's Danbury letter which the Court used was in fact a mistaken transcription. While the Court quoted Jefferson as writing, "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions", Jefferson's original handwriting reads "the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

[edit] Other arguments

Reynolds also argued that the grand jury that had indicted him was not legal. Under United States law at that time, a grand jury had to consist of no less than 16 persons. However his grand jury had only 15 persons. The court overruled this on the grounds that the Utah Territory had passed a law in 1870 that meant a grand jury had to consist of only 15 persons.

During his original trial, Reynolds had challenged two jurors, both of whom had stated that they had formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Reynolds before the trial. The court held that with universal education and media it would be hard to find jurors who had not formed some opinion on cases before they went to trial. The onus was then on the challenger to show that a real and strong opinion had been developed by the juror before the case. Reynolds had not done this.

The prosecution had asked the potential jurors whether they were themselves living in polygamy. Two of the men answered that they were unwilling to answer this question and so the prosecution had them discharged. The Supreme Court held that it would not overturn a case based on the legality of challenges to dismissed jurors.

The evidence given by Amelia Jane Schofield on a former trial of the accused for the same offence but under a different indictment was admissible. The court held that "if a witness is kept away by the adverse party, his testimony, taken on a former trial between the same parties upon the same issues, may be given in evidence". Schofield could not be found during the second trial and so evidence from the previous trial was used. The court held that Reynolds had every opportunity under oath to reveal the whereabouts of Schofield. This was the only point on which Justice Field dissented, finding that the evidence should not have been allowed.

Lastly, Reynolds had argued that the jury had been improperly instructed by the judge. The judge had told the jury that they "should consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent victims of this delusion". Reynolds argued that this introduced prejudice to the jury. The Court held that Reynolds had freely admitted that he was a bigamist and therefore was guilty of the crime he was charged with. All the judge had done was "call the attention of the jury to the peculiar character of the crime" and had done so "not to make them partial, but to keep them impartial".

[edit] Reaction

George Q. Cannon, representative of the territory, states concerning this decision:

"Our crime has been: We married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them; we desired to exclude from the land prostitution, bastardy and infanticide. If George Reynolds [the man who was convicted of committing bigamy] is to be punished, let the world know the facts . . . . Let it be published to the four corners of the earth that in this land of liberty, the most blessed and glorious upon which the sun shines, the law is swiftly invoked to punish religion, but justice goes limping and blindfolded in pursuit of crime."