![handle is hein.journals/prvw6 and id is 1 raw text is: Oct. 1978 Term-No. 1
OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES
September 7, 1978
Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases is published weekly, September through April, by the Association of American Law Schools and the American Law
Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education during each Term of the Supreme Court of the United States. Preview con-
tains memoranda by law school professors, describing the background, the significance, and the issues in all cases pending before the United States Supreme Court.
The purpose of Preview is to bring about a better understanding in the Nation of the work of the Supreme Court. The views and analyses in Preview are those of
the authors and not necessarily those of the Publication Staff or the sponsors of Preview or any other concerned organization. Subscription Rate: $25. Publication
Office: Preview, 4025 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104. Tel. 215-387-3000. Send form 3579 to ALI-ABA, 4025 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104.
Project Administrator: SHERMAN L. COHN El Editor: MEYER KRAMER [] Circulation Manager:
WALTER A. McLAUGHLIN ] Art Director: ROBERT O'LEARY ] Promotion: J. STUART TORREY
McARTHUR CORBITT v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY
(Docket No. 77-5903)
Criminal law - Jury trial - Permissibility of mandatory sen-
tence upon jury conviction if plea could result in lesser sentence
On Appeal from the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Decision
below: 74 N.J. 379, 378 A.2d 235 (1977)
Analysis prepared June 15, 1978, by Professor Roger D. Groot,
School of Law, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA
24450; telephone (703) 463-9111, ext. 220
Counselfor Appellant: Stanley C. Van Ness and James K. Smith,
Jr., East Orange, NJ, for Appellee: John J. Degnan, Leonard D.
Ronco, and Marc J. Friedman, Newark, NJ
Issue
Whether the fifth and sixth amendment rights to plead not
guilty and to have a jury trial, and the fourteenth amendment
right to equal protection, are violated by a procedure that imposes
a mandatory life sentence upon a jury conviction, but allows a
lesser sentence upon defendants who plead guilty.
Facts
A New Jersey murder defendant may plead not guilty and be
tried by a jury. If convicted of first degree murder by a jury, the
mandatory sentence is life imprisonment; if convicted of second
degree murder, sentence is a term of up to 30 years. A defendant
may not plead guilty to a murder indictment, but. may plead non
vult (nolo contendere). A person who so pleads may be sentenced
to life imprisonment or to a term of up to 30 years. Thus the
maximum penalty that may be imposed upon a murder convic-
tion - life - is the same whether the defendant pleads not guilty
and has a jury trial or pleads non vult. However, that maximum
sentence is mandatory after a plea of not guilty and a jury con-
viction, but is discretionary after a non vult plea.
McArthur Corbitt was indicted on two arson charges and a
murder charge. The murder was a death caused by a fire that pre-
cipitated one of the arson charges. Corbitt pleaded not guilty, but
was convicted on one arson charge and the murder charge.
Because the murder was felony murder - homicide occurring in
the course of another crime - it was first degree murder. Since
Corbitt was convicted of first degree murder by a jury, he re-
ceived the mandatory life sentence.
Background and Significance
In United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), the Supreme
Court held that a statute allowing a death sentence only if the
defendant pleaded not guilty andi, as convicted by a jury imper-
missibly chilled the defendant's rights to plead not guilty (fifth
amendment self-incrimination clause) and to have a jury trial
(sixth amendment jury trial clause). Jackson, factually similar to
the present case, is one example of a general proposition that one
may not be required to choose between receipt of a benefit and
exercise of a valued constitutional right. Other examples are
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (may not force choice
between dismissal from public employment and self incrimina-
tion), and Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (PREVIEW No.
17, Feb. 8, 1974) (may not force choice between loss of a public
contract and self-incrimination).
On the other hand, there are numerous cases holding that a
criminal defendant may be put to procedural choices, even when
one branch of the choice is constitutionally-based. The case fac-
tually closest to the present one is Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412
U.S. 17 (1973). In that case, a defendant successfully attacked his
conviction and obtained a retrial by a jury. The jury convicted
him, and, following usual state procedure, sentenced him as well;
the sentence was substantially greater than the sentence imposed
in the original trial. The Court held that the possibility of a higher
jury sentence upon retrial did not impermissibly chill the defen-
dant's right to appeal. Other examples are Crampton v. Ohio, 402
U.S. 183 (1971), and Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1970). In
Crampton, the Court held that a defendant's privilege against
self-incrimination is not offended in a capital case where he yields
to the pressure to testify on matters that might encourage a lesser
sentence at the risk of damaging his case on guilt, when both his
guilt and punishment are to be decided by the jury in a single trial
(unitary trial). In Fuller, the Court held that a statute that allows
the state to recoup attorney's fees from an indigent, convicted
Continued on page 2
Association 'of American Law Schools: President: A. KENNETH PYE, Duke University B President-Elect: EUGENE F. SCOLES, University of Oregon 0
Immediate Past President: FRANCIS A. ALLEN, University of Chicago EB Executive Committee: CHARLES 0. GALVIN, Southern Methodist University
o JANE L. HAMMOND, Cornell University 0 THOMAS L. JONES, University of Alabama B] LIZABETH A. MOODY, University of Toledo B HENRY
RAMSEY, JR., University of California 13 HARRY B. REESE, Northwestern University 11 Executive Director: MILLARD H. R UD, Washington. D.C.
ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Professional Education: Chairman: NORRIS DARRELL, New York, New York, Chairman of the Council, American Laiv Institute
o Vice Chairman: LEONARD S. JANOFSKY, Los Angeles, California, President-Elect, American Bar As.sociation 0 A. G. CLEVELAND, JR., Atlanta. Georgia El
LIASKELL COHN, Boston, Massachusetts o JOHN W. CUMMISKEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan 0 R. AMMI CUTTER, Cambridge, Massachusetts B ROBERT K.
MERSON, Huntington, West Virginia [] H. VERNON ENEY, Baltimore, Maryland B HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, Little Rock, Arkansas B MENDES HERSHMAN,
New York, New York 0 THEODORE A. KOLB, San Francisco, California 0 A. 'LEO LEVIN, Washington, D.C. B CARL McGOWAN, Washington, D.C. D WILLIAM
PINCUS, New York, New York B MILLARD H. RUUD, Washington, D.C. B SHERWIN P. SIMMONS, Tampa, Florida [ HAROLD J. SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma 0 S. SHEPHERD TATE, Memphis, Tennessee 0 HERBERT WECHSLER, New York, New York 0 Executiie Director: PAUL A. WOLKIN](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/prvw6&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most