Ham v. South Carolina Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Ham v. South Carolina | 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973)

Voir dire, a French phrase meaning to speak the truth, is the process by which potential jurors are questioned to assess their suitability for sitting on the jury. The United States Supreme Court considered whether a state trial judge’s refusal to ask potential jurors specific questions about possible prejudice against the defendant violated his federal constitutional rights in Ham versus South Carolina.

Gene Ham, a bearded black man and locally known civil-rights activist, was charged with possession of marijuana in South Carolina state court. Ham maintained his innocence, claiming that the police had framed him because of his civil rights activities. Before the start of voir dire, Ham requested that the trial judge ask potential jurors specific questions about their possible prejudice against him. Two of those questions centered around racial prejudice against black people, and one centered around prejudice against bearded people. The trial judge denied the request and instead asked the potential jurors general questions about bias or prejudice for or against Ham. Ham was ultimately convicted and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. He appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that the trial judge’s refusal to ask the questions that he requested violated his federal constitutional rights. That court disagreed, and Ham appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted cert.

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries