Reynolds v. United States

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case about polygamy and religious duty as a defense to criminal prosecution. For the 1952 case about the State Secrets Privilege, see United States v. Reynolds .

1879 United States Supreme Court case

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case which held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment . Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment 's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment .

George Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory . He was secretary to Brigham Young and presented himself as a test of the federal government's attempt to outlaw polygamy. An earlier conviction was overturned on technical grounds.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynolds_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The LDS Church, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived its members of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion , chose to challenge the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act . The First Presidency decided to furnish a defendant to establish a test case to be brought before the United States Supreme Court, to determine the constitutionality of the anti-bigamy law. Reynolds, a secretary in the office of the president of the church , agreed to serve as the defendant. He provided the United States Attorney with numerous witnesses who could testify of his being married to two wives, and was indicted for bigamy by a grand jury on June 23, 1874. In 1875, Reynolds was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison at hard labor (a provision not included in the statute) and a fine of five hundred dollars. In 1876 the Utah Territorial Supreme Court upheld the sentence.

Previously, U.S. Attorney William Carey promised to stop his attempts to indict general authorities during the test case. However, when Carey failed to keep his promise and arrested George Q. Cannon , LDS Church leaders decided that they would no longer cooperate with him.

The Supreme Court had dealt with religious liberty in only a handful of earlier cases, such as _Vidal v. Girard's Executors _, _Permoli v. New Orleans _, and _Watson v. Jones _. In Watson, the justice writing for the court observed in dicta that the protection of religious liberty was not absolute because people were not entitled to "violate the laws of morality and property" or to "infringe personal rights."

Prior history

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynolds_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Prior history")
]

Reynolds was indicted in the District Court for the 3rd Judicial District of the Territory of Utah under sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States , which stated, as quoted in the Supreme Court decision:

Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

Reynolds tried to have the jury instructed that if they found he committed bigamy with the only intention of following his religion, then he must be acquitted. The trial court refused this request and instructed the jury that if they found that Reynolds, under religious influence, "deliberately married a second time, having a first wife living, the want of consciousness of evil intent —the want of understanding on his part that he was committing crime—did not excuse him , but the law inexorably, in such cases, implies criminal intent."

After being found guilty by the lower court, Reynolds appealed to the Utah Territorial Supreme Court , which upheld the conviction.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynolds_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Decision")
]

Reynolds's attorneys, George W. Biddle and Ben Sheeks, appealed the Utah Territorial Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite , and Associate Justices Joseph P. Bradley , Nathan Clifford , Stephen Johnson Field , John Marshall Harlan , Ward Hunt , Samuel Freeman Miller , William Strong , and Noah Haynes Swayne .

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on 14 November 1878. Reynolds' attorneys argued that his conviction for bigamy should be overturned on four issues: (1) that it was his religious duty to marry multiple times , the practice of which the First Amendment protected as a fundamental duty of his religion; (2) that his grand jury had not been legally constituted; (3) that challenges of certain jurors were improperly overruled; and (4) that testimony was not admissible as it was under another indictment.

On 6 January 1879, the Court issued its unanimous decision affirming Reynolds's conviction and rejecting Reynolds's argument that the Latter-day Saint practice of plural marriage was protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Thus, his conviction was upheld, as was the constitutionality of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote on behalf of himself and seven colleagues. Justice Field wrote a separate opinion that dissented on one minor point.

At a subsequent day of the term, on a petition for rehearing, it was pointed out that Reynolds' sentence to "hard labor" was not a part of the statute. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court to vacate the sentence of the lower court.

"Since our judgment in this case was announced, a petition for rehearing has been filed, in which our attention is called to the fact that the sentence of the [98 U.S. 145, 169] court below requires the imprisonment to be at hard labor, when the act of Congress under which the indictment was found provides for punishment by imprisonment only. This was not assigned for error on the former hearing, and we might on that account decline to consider it now; but as the irregularity is one which appears on the face of the record, we vacate our former judgment of affirmance, and reverse the judgment of the court below for the purpose of correcting the only error which appears in the record, to wit, in the form of the sentence. The cause is remanded, with instructions to cause the sentence of the District Court to be set aside and a new one entered on the verdict in all respects like that before imposed, except so far as it requires the imprisonment to be at hard labor."

Religious duty argument

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynolds_v._United_States&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Religious duty argument")
]

The Court considered whether Reynolds could use religious belief or duty as a defense. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Court recognized that under the First Amendment , the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion . But it held that th

…