## Facts

- Lee E. A. Parker was convicted of second-degree murder in Oregon state court and sentenced to prison.
- The jury was sequestered for eight days under the supervision of a court bailiff.
- While outside the courtroom, the bailiff made comments about Parker to jurors, including: “Oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty.”
- The bailiff also told a juror that if a guilty verdict was wrong, “the Supreme Court will correct it.”
- At least one regular juror heard the remarks, and at least one statement was made to an alternate juror in the presence of a regular juror.
- A state post-conviction court found the communications unauthorized and prejudicial and ordered a new trial.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, concluding the misconduct did not deny Parker a constitutionally fair trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a bailiff’s extrajudicial statements to jurors about the defendant’s guilt violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the bailiff’s statements amounted to evidence against the defendant not subject to confrontation and cross-examination, violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Supreme Court.
- The Court held that the bailiff’s statements violated Parker’s Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and to confront the witnesses against him, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court treated the bailiff’s remarks as an improper outside influence that reached the jury and carried special weight because the bailiff was a state officer.
- The reversal reinstated the effect of the post-conviction court’s order granting Parker a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment requires that a defendant be tried by an impartial jury, free from improper outside influences, including prejudicial communications by court officers.
- The right of confrontation and cross-examination is a fundamental component of a constitutionally fair trial and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Information or impressions bearing on guilt that reach jurors through private communications by state officials are constitutionally suspect because they bypass courtroom safeguards and the adversarial process.
- Jurors must base their verdict solely on evidence presented in open court, where it is subject to confrontation, cross-examination, and counsel.

## Conclusion

Because a bailiff’s unauthorized statements to jurors asserted the defendant’s guilt and diminished the jury’s responsibility for its verdict, the Supreme Court held that Parker’s Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and confrontation were violated and reversed to require a new trial.


Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)