## Facts

- Gene Ham, a Black man and local civil-rights worker, was arrested in Florence, South Carolina, on outstanding warrants alleging drug possession.
- A jail search produced marijuana; Ham claimed police had framed him because of his civil-rights activities.
- Ham was tried in the General Sessions Court of Florence County and convicted of marijuana possession; he received an 18-month sentence.
- Before jury selection, Ham timely requested that prospective jurors be questioned specifically about racial prejudice, bias against his beard, and exposure to local drug-related publicity.
- The trial judge declined to ask the requested specific questions and instead asked only general questions about whether jurors had formed opinions or held biases preventing a fair trial.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction by a divided court.

## Issues

1. Whether due process required the trial court, upon timely request, to question prospective jurors specifically about racial prejudice.
2. Whether due process required specific voir dire questions about possible prejudice against the defendant’s beard.
3. Whether due process required specific voir dire questions about jurors’ exposure to drug-related publicity.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held that the trial court’s refusal to make any inquiry into racial bias after a timely request denied due process and a fair trial.
- The Court held there was no constitutional error in refusing to ask specific questions about prejudice against beards, given the general impartiality questioning and the trial court’s discretion in voir dire.
- The Court held the record did not require additional inquiry into pretrial publicity beyond the general impartiality questions.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause requires, upon timely request, at least one direct voir dire inquiry into racial prejudice when racial bias is a realistic concern in the case.
- General questions about impartiality do not satisfy due process when they are the only questions and the court refuses all inquiry into racial bias after a timely request.
- Trial courts retain broad discretion over voir dire; due process does not require specific questioning on nonracial biases such as appearance-based prejudice, absent special circumstances.
- Due process does not mandate specific voir dire questions about pretrial publicity without a record showing a substantial risk of juror prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Court held that fundamental fairness required some specific questioning of prospective jurors about racial bias when requested in circumstances making race a significant concern, but it declined to constitutionalize requested voir dire questions on beards or generalized drug publicity, leaving those matters largely to trial-court discretion.


Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973)