Connection lost
Server error
Duncan v. Louisiana Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man convicted of battery in a Louisiana bench trial argued he was unconstitutionally denied a jury. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial for serious crimes is a fundamental right applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal Significance: This landmark case incorporated the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial against the states for serious criminal offenses, solidifying the “selective incorporation” doctrine and establishing that crimes punishable by more than six months’ imprisonment are not “petty offenses.”
Duncan v. Louisiana Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Gary Duncan, a 19-year-old African American, was involved in a racially charged confrontation between his two younger cousins and four white youths. Duncan allegedly slapped one of the white boys on the elbow. He was charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor under Louisiana law punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and a $300 fine. The Louisiana Constitution provided for jury trials only in cases where the punishment could be capital or imprisonment at hard labor. Consequently, the trial judge denied Duncan’s request for a jury trial. After a bench trial, the judge convicted Duncan and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and a $150 fine. Duncan appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the state’s denial of a jury trial violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a jury trial in a state prosecution for a serious, non-petty offense?
Yes. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. E
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a jury trial in a state prosecution for a serious, non-petty offense?
Conclusion
Duncan v. Louisiana is a seminal selective incorporation case that established the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nos
Legal Rule
The Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial is a fundamental right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidat
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice White employed the doctrine of selective incorporation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is a fundamental