Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Patterson v. Kentucky

• 1878 • 97 U.S. 501 • Waite Court
In the case of Patterson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a criminal defendant had the right to a jury trial in a state court. The defendant, Patterson, had been convicted of murder in a Kentucky state court without a jury trial. He argued that the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guaranteed him the right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment did not apply to the states, and thus Patterson did not have...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1878
Docket: 117
97 U.S. 501
24 L. Ed. 1115
1878 U.S. LEXIS 1479
Argued: Jan 10, 1879

Patterson v. Kentucky

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Patterson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a criminal defendant had the right to a jury trial in a state court. The defendant, Patterson, had been convicted of murder in a Kentucky state court without a jury trial. He argued that the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guaranteed him the right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment did not apply to the states, and thus Patterson did not have the right to a jury trial. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, which was intended to limit the power of the federal government, not the states. The Court also noted that the Fourteenth Amendment, which did apply to the states, did not guarantee the right to a jury trial. The Court's decision in Patterson v. Kentucky established that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the states, and thus criminal defendants in state courts do not have the right to a jury trial. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the rights of criminal defendants in state courts.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Patterson v. Kentucky, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to this case because it was a criminal prosecution and not an act of state legislation. He argued that while the amendment prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction equal protection under the law, it does not grant them additional rights or privileges beyond those already provided by common law. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some violation of constitutional rights in this particular case, it would be up to Congress to provide relief rather than for courts to interfere with state proceedings on such matters. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that allowing federal courts to intervene in cases like these could lead to dangerous consequences as they would become "the ultimate arbiters" of all questions involving civil and political rights throughout the country.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Feb 03, 1879
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms