## Facts

- Clawans sold unused portions of railway excursion tickets and was charged in the District of Columbia police court with engaging, without a license, in the business of a dealer in secondhand personal property.
- The governing statute authorized punishment by a fine up to $300 or imprisonment up to 90 days and provided for trial in the police court.
- At arraignment, Clawans demanded a jury trial; the police court denied the request.
- The police court convicted Clawans and sentenced her to a $300 fine or 60 days in jail.
- The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed on the ground that the Constitution required a jury trial, while finding the trial otherwise fair.
- The District of Columbia sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an offense punishable by up to a $300 fine or 90 days’ imprisonment is a “crime” requiring a jury trial under Article III and the Sixth Amendment, or a petty offense triable without a jury.
2. Whether limits on cross-examination of privately employed detectives testifying for the prosecution denied Clawans a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction.
- The Court held the charged offense was a petty offense that may be tried without a jury consistently with Article III and the Sixth Amendment.
- The Court held that the cross-examination limitations did not deprive Clawans of a fair trial on the record presented, while warning against summary curtailment of cross-examination of private detectives.

## Legal Principles

- Whether an offense is “petty” turns on objective indicators, including the maximum authorized penalty, the moral quality of the conduct, and its relation to common-law crimes.
- Historical practice supports summary (nonjury) trials for petty offenses; an asserted shift in punishment severity must be shown by laws and practices of the community.
- The absence of an appeal as of right does not affect whether the Constitution requires a jury trial for the offense.
- Testimony from privately employed detectives may present bias concerns; cross-examination directed to substantial issues should not be cut off summarily, though reasonable limits may be upheld absent unfairness.

## Conclusion

The Court held that unlicensed dealing in secondhand personal property, carrying a maximum penalty of a $300 fine or 90 days’ imprisonment, is a petty offense outside the constitutional jury-trial guarantee, and it found no reversible unfairness from the trial court’s restrictions on cross-examination of private detectives.


District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937)