Facts
- George Reynolds, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, agreed to serve as a test case challenging a federal anti-bigamy statute applicable in U.S. territories.
- While married to his first wife, Reynolds married a second wife in the Utah Territory.
- Reynolds did not contest that his conduct satisfied the elements of bigamy under federal law.
- Reynolds argued the law violated the First Amendment because his religion required plural marriage.
- Reynolds was indicted by a 15-member territorial grand jury, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor and a fine.
- The Utah Territorial Supreme Court affirmed, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court on writ of error.
Issues
- Whether the Free Exercise Clause bars applying a federal criminal prohibition on bigamy to a defendant who claims a religious obligation to practice plural marriage.
- Whether an indictment returned by a 15-member territorial grand jury was invalid because federal law required at least 16 grand jurors in federal district and circuit courts.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to excuse jurors who had formed opinions from newspaper accounts but asserted they could decide based on the evidence.
- Whether admitting prior testimony of absent witnesses violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the defendant was responsible, or potentially responsible, for the witnesses’ absence.
- Whether the federal anti-bigamy statute was constitutional as an exercise of congressional power in the territories.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held that religious belief does not excuse criminal conduct; the Free Exercise Clause protects belief and opinion, but permits regulation of conduct through otherwise valid criminal laws.
- The Court upheld the territorial grand jury indictment, concluding the federal grand jury-size requirement applied to federal district and circuit courts, not territorial courts governed by territorial law.
- The Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s handling of juror impartiality where jurors asserted their preexisting opinions would not control their verdict.
- The Court held the use of prior testimony from absent witnesses was permissible where the defendant had procured, or likely procured, their absence, preventing him from invoking confrontation as a bar.
- The Court concluded the anti-bigamy statute was constitutional and within Congress’s authority to enforce in the territories.
Legal Principles
- The Free Exercise Clause absolutely protects religious belief and opinion, but does not provide a categorical exemption from neutral criminal laws regulating conduct.
- Allowing religious doctrine to justify violations of criminal law would make private religious views superior to the law and permit individuals to treat themselves as exceptions to generally applicable rules.
- Congress may legislate for the territories, including criminal prohibitions on conduct deemed contrary to public order, without violating the Free Exercise Clause when the law targets conduct rather than belief.
- Federal procedural requirements directed to federal district and circuit courts do not automatically govern territorial courts when territorial law supplies different procedures.
- A defendant who causes, or likely causes, a witness’s absence cannot claim a confrontation violation from the prosecution’s use of the witness’s prior testimony from an earlier proceeding on the same issues.
Conclusion
The Court upheld a federal ban on bigamy in the territories and rejected a religious-duty defense, drawing a belief–conduct distinction under the Free Exercise Clause while also sustaining the territorial grand jury procedure, the trial court’s juror rulings, and the admission of prior testimony when the defendant was responsible for a witness’s absence.