Williams v. Florida

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to the prosecution, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members.Also, in 1967 Florida had reduced the number of jurors in all non-capital cases from 12 to 6, and so Williams had been convicted by a jury of six.The point of a jury trial was to prevent oppression by the government: Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.[3]A companion case, Dunn v. Louisiana, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in a one-line per curiam opinion noting that Justice Marshall would have reversed for the reasons provided in his dissent in Williams.[4] Eight years later, in Ballew v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that a jury of 5 was unconstitutional.
Supreme Court of the United StatesL. Ed. 2dU.S. LEXISSo. 2dFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentWarren E. BurgerHugo BlackWilliam O. DouglasJohn M. Harlan IIWilliam J. Brennan Jr.Potter StewartByron WhiteThurgood MarshallHarry BlackmunU.S. Const. amends. VWikisourceUnited States Supreme Courtcommon lawcontinuanceBallew v. Georgiapublic domain material from this U.S government documentDuncan v. LouisianaUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureGrand JuryHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainWong Wing v. United StatesMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonDouble Jeopardy ClauseBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsSmith v. United StatesUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United StatesEx parte BigelowPalko v. ConnecticutLouisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberBaxstrom v. HeroldNorth Carolina v. PearceBenton v. MarylandSelf-Incrimination ClauseUnited States v. SullivanGriffin v. CaliforniaMiranda v. ArizonaEdwards v. ArizonaOregon v. ElstadIllinois v. PerkinsMcNeil v. WisconsinMitchell v. United StatesUnited States v. HubbellDickerson v. United StatesChavez v. MartinezYarborough v. AlvaradoMissouri v. SeibertUnited States v. PataneFlorida v. PowellMaryland v. ShatzerBerghuis v. ThompkinsJ. D. B. v. North CarolinaBobby v. DixonHowes v. FieldsSalinas v. TexasVega v. TekohUnited States Sixth AmendmentSpeedy Trial ClauseKlopfer v. North CarolinaBarker v. WingoDoggett v. United StatesBetterman v. MontanaPublic TrialIn re OliverPresley v. GeorgiaCheff v. SchnackenbergBlanton v. City of North Las VegasReynolds v. United StatesGlasser v. United StatesIrvin v. DowdSheppard v. MaxwellWitherspoon v. IllinoisHam v. South CarolinaAdams v. TexasWainwright v. WittMorgan v. IllinoisSkilling v. United StatesMcDonnell v. United StatesUnited States v. TsarnaevWalton v. ArizonaAlmendarez-Torres v. United StatesJones v. United StatesApprendi v. New JerseyRing v. ArizonaBlakely v. WashingtonSchriro v. SummerlinUnited States v. BookerWashington v. RecuencoCunningham v. CaliforniaOregon v. IceSouthern Union Co. v. United StatesAlleyne v. United StatesHurst v. FloridaUnited States v. HaymondErlinger v. United StatesRassmussen v. United StatesApodaca v. OregonBurch v. LouisianaRamos v. LouisianaEdwards v. VannoyVicinage ClauseUnited States v. DawsonTanner v. United StatesWarger v. ShauersPeña-Rodriguez v. ColoradoRabe v. WashingtonConfrontation ClauseDowdell v. United StatesPointer v. TexasBruton v. United StatesFrazier v. CuppIllinois v. AllenOhio v. RobertsCrawford v. WashingtonDavis v. WashingtonWhorton v. BocktingGiles v. CaliforniaMelendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsMichigan v. BryantBullcoming v. New MexicoWilliams v. IllinoisOhio v. ClarkHemphill v. New YorkSamia v. United StatesSmith v. ArizonaMaryland v. CraigChambers v. MississippiCompulsory Process ClauseWashington v. TexasUnited States v. Valenzuela-BernalTaylor v. IllinoisAssistance of Counsel ClauseUnited States v. Gonzalez-LopezPowell v. AlabamaJohnson v. ZerbstBetts v. BradyHamilton v. AlabamaGideon v. WainwrightAnders v. CaliforniaArgersinger v. HamlinGagnon v. ScarpelliFuller v. OregonScott v. IllinoisPennsylvania v. FinleyNichols v. United StatesAlabama v. SheltonIneffective assistanceStrickland v. WashingtonNix v. WhitesideKimmelman v. MorrisonLockhart v. FretwellWilliams v. TaylorGlover v. United StatesBell v. ConeWoodford v. VisciottiWiggins v. SmithHolland v. JacksonWright v. Van PattenBobby v. Van HookWong v. BelmontesPorter v. McCollumPadilla v. KentuckySears v. UptonPremo v. MooreLafler v. CooperBuck v. DavisGarza v. IdahoShinn v. RamirezMassiah v. United StatesBrewer v. WilliamsPro seFaretta v. CaliforniaMcKaskle v. WigginsRock v. ArkansasMartinez v. Court of Appeal of CaliforniaIndiana v. Edwards