لودفيج ضد ماساتشوستس

حددت المحكمة ما إذا كان حق لودفيج في محاكمة أمام هيئة محلفين قد انتُهك، وذلك بالنظر أولاً إلى هذا الحق في ضوء الحماية التي يوفرها القانون العام. فقد كان الحق في محاكمة أمام هيئة محلفين، بموجب القانون العام، محصوراً في القضايا الجنائية الخطيرة. وفي معرض تحديد نطاق هذا الحق في الإجراءات القضائية على مستوى الولايات، ذكرت المحكمة أن "التعديل الرابع عشر يضمن الحق في محاكمة أمام هيئة محلفين في جميع القضايا الجنائية التي لو نُظرت أمام محكمة اتحادية لكانت مشمولة بضمان التعديل السادس". وبالتالي، فإنه فقط عندما يُتهم شخص ما بجنحة "بسيطة"، والتي تُحدد عادةً بالرجوع إلى أقصى عقوبة يمكن فرضها، يسمح الدستور للحكومة الاتحادية والولاية بحرمان المتهم من حريته دون منحه فرصة إثبات إدانته أمام هيئة محلفين.

The Court had previously held that a jury of 12 is not essential to the right. It additionally held that the jury's verdict need not be unanimous. What is important is that a majority verdict consists of “a group of laymen representative of a cross section of the community who have the duty and the opportunity to deliberate, free from outside attempts at intimidation, on the question of a defendant's guilt.”

There is no question that Ludwig’s right to a jury trial was intact. The Massachusetts courts provide a jury for all serious offenses and provides a jury upon appeal from the lower court’s decision.

The protection afforded by the principle of double jeopardy as a function of three related common-law pleas: Autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon. Only autrefois convict was at issue in the case. Ludwig was initially convicted. He argued that he could not be retried when he informed the trial court of his decision to “appeal” and to secure a trial De novo.

The decision to secure a new trial rests with the accused alone. A defendant who elects to be tried De novo in Massachusetts is in no different position than is a convicted defendant who successfully appeals on the basis of the trial record and gains a reversal of his conviction and a remand of his case for a new trial.

The only difference between an appeal on the record and an appeal resulting automatically in a new trial is that a convicted defendant in Massachusetts may obtain a “reversal” and a new trial without assignment of error in the proceedings at his first trial. Nothing in the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a State from affording a defendant two opportunities to avoid conviction and secure an acquittal.