## Facts

- Frank Johnson was arrested without a warrant at his home for one robbery based on photographic identification.
- A magistrate later committed him.
- After the commitment, Johnson appeared in a lineup (with counsel present) and was identified as the perpetrator of a different robbery.
- Johnson was tried for armed robbery before a 12-person jury and convicted on a 9–3 verdict under Louisiana law for certain noncapital felonies punishable at hard labor.
- Louisiana law required unanimity for five-person juries in certain hard-labor-eligible cases and for 12-person juries in capital cases, but permitted 9–3 verdicts for 12-person juries in noncapital hard-labor felonies.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Johnson’s Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the nonunanimous verdict scheme and his claim that the lineup identification was the fruit of an illegal arrest.
- In the U.S. Supreme Court, Johnson relied on the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting conviction for a serious felony by a 9–3 jury verdict violates due process by failing to satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether Louisiana’s differing unanimity requirements across offense and jury categories deny equal protection by creating an invidious classification.
3. Whether the lineup identification was inadmissible as fruit of an allegedly illegal, warrantless arrest.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed in a 5–4 decision.
- Due process was not violated by Louisiana’s authorization of 9–3 guilty verdicts in covered felony cases; lack of unanimity did not itself establish reasonable doubt.
- Equal protection was not violated; the distinctions in Louisiana’s verdict requirements were rationally related to legitimate state interests in efficient administration of justice and varying procedural rigor with offense severity.
- The lineup identification was admissible because no tainted evidence from an illegal arrest was used at trial and the magistrate’s commitment was treated as purging any primary taint.

## Legal Principles

- A nonunanimous guilty verdict in a state criminal trial is not, by itself, constitutionally incompatible with the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the jury is properly instructed.
- The Fourteenth Amendment does not itself require that states impose a common-law unanimity requirement for jury convictions in noncapital criminal cases.
- Differing state verdict rules across categories of offenses or jury sizes do not violate equal protection where the classification has a rational basis and is tied to legitimate governmental objectives.
- Identification evidence is not excluded as fruit of an unlawful arrest where the challenged procedure is not shown to be obtained by exploitation of the arrest and intervening judicial action may attenuate any taint.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Louisiana’s nonunanimous 9–3 felony jury verdict rule against due process and equal protection challenges and allowed admission of lineup identification evidence, concluding that nonunanimity does not itself establish reasonable doubt and that the lineup was sufficiently attenuated from any alleged illegality in the arrest.


Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972)