Reynolds v. United States

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in the Utah Territory.

Before the Supreme Court, Reynolds argued against his conviction for bigamy should be overturned on six issues. These included that his grand jury had not been legal, that challenges of certain jurors were improperly overruled, testimony by Amelia Jane Schofield was not permissable as it was under another indictment, and most important that it was his religious duty to marry multiple times.

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, which stated:

'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.'

After being found guilty by the lower court, Reynolds appealed to the Supreme Court of the Utah Territory. This upheld the conviction.

The bench

The makeup of the Supreme Court and their opinions were:

Opinion

• Written by: Chief Justice Morrison Waite
  • Joined by: Justices Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Joseph Philo Bradley, Ward Hunt and John Marshall Harlan

Dissenting

1. Written by: Justice Stephen Johnson Field

The case

Religious Duty argument

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible. Mormons believed that if a man did not practice polygamy then they would be punished by God with "damnation in the life to come".

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," whereas "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if we allowed polygamy, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendement was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.

Other arguments

Reynolds also argued that the grand jury that had indicted him was not legal. Under United States law at the time, a grand jury had to consist of no less than 16 persons. However his grand jury had only 15 persons. The court overruled this on the grounds that the Utah Territory had passed a law in 1870 that meant a grand jury had to consist of only 15 persons.

During his original trial, Reynolds had challenged two jurors, both of whom had stated that they had formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Reynolds before the trial. The court held that with universal eduction and media it would be hard to find jurors who had not formed some opinion on cases before they went to trial. The onus was then on the challenger to show that a real and strong opinion had been developed by the juror before the case. Reynolds had not done this.

The prosecution had asked the potential jurors whether they were themselves living in polygamy. Two of the men answered that there unwilling to answer this question and so the prosecution had them discharged. The Supreme Court held that it would not overturn a case based on the legality of challenges to dismissed jurors.

The evidence given by Amelia Jane Schofield on a former trial of the accused for the same offence but under a different indictment was admissable. The court held that "if a witness is kept away by the adverse party, his testimony, taken on a former trial between the same parties upon the same issues, may be given in evidence". Schofield could not be found during the second trial and so evidence from the previous trial was used. The court held that Reynolds had every opportunity under oath to reveal the whereabouts of Schofield. This was the only point on which Justice Field dissenting, finding that the evidence should not have been allowed.

Lastly, Reynolds had argued that the jury had been improperly instructed by the judge. The judge had told the jury that they "should consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent victims of this delusion". Reynolds argued that this introduced prejudice to the jury. The Court held that Reynolds had freely admitted that he was a bigamist and therefore was guilty of the crime he was charged with. All the judge had done was "call the attention of the jury to the peculiar character of the crime" and had in doing so had "not to make them partial, but to keep them impartial".

References

• Stephen Johnson Field. U.S. Supreme Court REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Retrieved Feb 6, 2005.
• Long, Bill. Free exercise of Religion. Retrieved Feb 6, 2005.