Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Constitutional questions decided by this Court concerning the juvenile process have centered on the adjudicatory stage at “which a determination is made as to *359whether a juvenile is a ‘delinquent’ as a result of alleged misconduct on his part, with the consequence that he may be committed to a state institution.” In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 13 (1967). Gault decided that, although the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that the hearing at this stage conform with all the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative proceeding, the Due Process Clause does require application during the adjudicatory hearing of “ ‘the essentials of due process and fair treatment.’ ” Id., at 30. This case presents the single, narrow question whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the “essentials of due process and fair treatment” required during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.1

Section 712 of the New York Family Court Act defines a juvenile delinquent as “a person over seven and less than sixteen years of age who does any act which, if done by an adult, would constitute a crime.” During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing, conducted pursuant to § 742 of the Act, a judge in New York Family Court *360found that appellant, then a 12-year-old boy, had entered a locker and stolen $112 from a woman’s pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, “if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of Larceny.” The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rejected appellant’s contention that such proof was required by the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge relied instead on § 744 (b) of the New York Family Court Act which provides that “[a]ny determination at the conclusion of [an adjudicatory] hearing that a [juvenile] did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.”2 During a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of 18 months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his 18th birthday — six years in appellant’s case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion, 30 App. Div. 2d 781, 291 N. Y. S. 2d 1005 (1968). The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of § 744 (b), 24 N. Y. 2d 196, 247 N. E. 2d 253 (1969).3 *361We noted probable jurisdiction, 396 U. S. 885 (1969). We reverse.

I

The requirement that guilt of a criminal charge be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt dates at least from our early years as a Nation. The “demand for a higher degree of persuasion in criminal cases was recurrently expressed from ancient times, [though] its crystallization into the formula ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ seems to have occurred as late as 1798. It is now accepted in common law jurisdictions as the measure of persuasion by which the prosecution must convince the trier of all the essential elements of guilt.” C. McCormick, Evidence § 321, pp. 681-682 (1954); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2497 (3d ed. 1940). Although virtually unanimous adherence to the reasonable-doubt standard in common-law jurisdictions may not conclusively establish it as a requirement of due process, such adherence does “reflect a profound judgment about the *362way in which law should be enforced and justice administered.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155 (1968).

Expressions in many opinions of this Court indicate that it has long been assumed that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required. See, for example, Miles v. United States, 103 E. S. 304, 312 (1881); Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 488 (1895); Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 253 (1910); Wilson v. United States, 232 U. S. 563, 569-570 (1914); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174 (1949); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 795 (1952); Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, 138 (1954); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526 (1958). Cf. Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432 (1895). Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated that “[i]t is the duty of the Government to establish . . . guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This notion — basic in our law and rightly one of the boasts of a free society — is a requirement and a safeguard of due process of law in the historic, procedural content of ‘due process.' ” Leland v. Oregon, supra, at 802-803 (dissenting opinion). In a similar vein, the Court said in Brinegar v. United States, supra, at 174, that “[g]uilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by evidence confined to that which long experience in the common-law tradition, to some extent embodied in the Constitution, has crystallized into rules of evidence consistent with that standard. These rules are historically grounded rights of our system, developed to safeguard men from dubious and unjust convictions, with resulting forfeitures of life, liberty and property.” Davis v. United States, supra, at 488, stated that the requirement is implicit in “constitutions . . . [which] recognize the fundamental principles that are deemed essential for the protection of life and liberty.” In Davis a murder conviction was *363reversed because the trial judge instructed the jury that it was their duty to convict when the evidence was equally balanced regarding the sanity of the accused. This Court said: “On the contrary, he is entitled to an acquittal of the specific crime charged if upon all the evidence there is reasonable doubt whether he was capable in law of committing crime. ... No man should be deprived of his life under the forms of law unless the jurors who try him are able, upon their consciences, to say that the evidence before them ... is sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.” Id., at 484, 493.

The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence — that bedrock “axiomatic and elementary” principle whose “enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin v. United States, supra, at 453. As the dissenters in the New York Court of Appeals observed, and we agree, “a person accused of a crime . . . would be at a severe disadvantage, a disadvantage amounting to a lack of fundamental fairness, if he could be adjudged guilty and imprisoned for years on the strength of the same evidence as would suffice in a civil case.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 205, 247 N. E. 2d, at 259.

The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has this vital role in our criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction. Accordingly, a society *364that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt. As we said in Speiser v. Randall, supra, at 525-526: “There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value — as a criminal defendant his liberty — this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of . . . persuading the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . . . convincing the factfinder of his guilt.” To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it “impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue.” Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26 (1967).

Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty.

Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.

*365II

We turn to the question whether juveniles, like adults, are constitutionally entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when they are charged with violation of a criminal law. The same considerations that demand y, extreme caution in factfinding to protect the innocent adult apply as well to the innocent child. We do not find convincing the contrary arguments of thé New York Court of Appeals. Gault rendered untenable much of the reasoning relied upon by that court to sustain the constitutionality of § 744(b). The Court of Appeals indicated that a delinquency adjudication “is not a ‘conviction’ (§781); that it affects no right or privilege, including the right to hold public office or to obtain a license (§ 782); and a cloak of protective confidentiality is thrown around all the proceedings (§§ 783-784).” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 200, 247 N. E. 2d, at 255-256. The court said further: “The delinquency status is not made a crime; and the proceedings are not criminal. There is, hence, no deprivation of due process in the statutory provision [challenged by appellant] . . . .” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 203, 247 N. E. 2d, at 257. In effect the Court of Appeals distinguished the proceedings in question here from a criminal prosecution by use of what Gault called the “ ‘civil’ label-of-convenience which has been attached to juvenile proceedings.” 387 U. S., at 50. But Gault expressly rejected that distinction as a reason for holding the Due Process Clause inapplicable to a juvenile proceeding. 387 U. S., at 50-51. The Court of Appeals also attempted to justify the preponderance standard on the related ground that juvenile proceedings are designed “not to punish, but to save the child.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 197, 247 N. E. 2d, at 254. Again, however, Gault expressly rejected this justification. 387 U. S., at 27. We made clear in that decision that civil labels and good *366intentions do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards in juvenile courts, for "[a] proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be 'delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution.” Id., at 36.

Nor do we perceive any merit in the argument that to afford juveniles the protection of proof beyond a reasonable doubt would risk destruction of beneficial aspects of the juvenile process.4 Use of the reasonable-doubt standard during the adjudicatory hearing will not disturb New York’s policies that a finding that a child has violated a criminal law does not constitute a criminal conviction, that such a finding does not deprive the child of his civil rights, and that juvenile proceedings are confidential. Nor will there be any effect on the informality, flexibility, or speed of the hearing at which the factfinding takes place. And the opportunity during the post-adjudicatory or dispositional hearing for a wide-ranging review of the child’s social history and for his individualized treatment will remain unimpaired. Similarly, there will be no effect on the pro*367cedures distinctive to juvenile proceedings that are employed prior to the adjudicatory hearing.

The Court of Appeals observed that “a child’s best interest is not necessarily, or even probably, promoted if he wins in the particular inquiry which may bring him to the juvenile court.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 199, 247 N. E. 2d, at 255. It is true, of course, that the juvenile may be engaging in a general course of conduct inimical to his welfare that calls for judicial intervention. But that intervention cannot take the form of subjecting the child to the stigma of a finding that he violated a criminal law5 and to the possibility of institutional confinement on proof insufficient to convict him were he an adult.

We conclude, as we concluded regarding the essential due process safeguards applied in Gault, that the observance of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “will not compel the States to abandon or displace any of the substantive benefits of the juvenile process.” Gault, supra, at 21.

Finally, we reject the Court of Appeals’ suggestion that there is, in any event, only a “tenuous difference” between the reasonable-doubt and preponderance standards. The suggestion is singularly unpersuasive. In this very case, the trial judge’s ability to distinguish between the two standards enabled him to make a finding of guilt that he conceded he might not have made under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the trial judge’s action evidences the accuracy of the observation of commentators that “the preponderance test is susceptible to the misinter*368pretation that it calls on the trier of fact merely to perform an abstract weighing of the evidence in order to determine which side has produced the greater quantum, without regard to its effect in convincing his mind of the truth of the proposition asserted.” Dorsen & Rezneck, supra, at 26-27.6

Ill

In sum, the constitutional safeguard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is as much required during the adjudicatory stage of a delinquency proceeding as are those constitutional safeguards applied in Gault — notice of charges, right to counsel, the rights of confrontation and examination, and the privilege against self-incrimination. We therefore hold, in agreement with Chief Judge Fuld in dissent in the Court of Appeals, “that, where a 12-year-old child is charged with an act of stealing which renders him liable to confinement for as long as six years, then, as a matter of due process . . . the case against him must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 24 N. Y. 2d, at 207, 247 N. E. 2d, at 260.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

concurring.

No one, I daresay, would contend that state juvenile court trials are subject to no federal constitutional limitations. Differences have existed, however, among the members of this Court as to what constitutional protections do apply. See In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967).

*369The present case draws in question the validity of a New York statute that permits a determination of juvenile delinquency, founded on a charge of criminal conduct, to be made on a standard of proof that is less rigorous than that which would obtain had the accused been tried for the same conduct in an ordinary criminal case. While I am in full agreement that this statutory provision offends the requirement of fundamental fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, I am constrained to add something to what my Brother Brennan has written for the Court, lest the true nature of the constitutional problem presented become obscured or the impact on state juvenile court systems of what the Court holds today be exaggerated.

I

Professor Wigmore, in discussing the various attempts by courts to define how convinced one must be to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, wryly observed: “The truth is that no one has yet invented or discovered a mode of measurement for the intensity of human belief. Hence there can be yet no successful method of communicating intelligibly ... a sound method of self-analysis for one's belief,” 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 325 (3d ed. 1940)1

Notwithstanding Professor Wigmore’s skepticism, we have before us a case where the choice of the standard of proof has made a difference: the juvenile court judge below forthrightly acknowledged that he believed by a preponderance of the evidence, but was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant stole $112 from the complainant’s pocketbook. Moreover, even though the labels used for alternative standards of proof are *370vague and not a very sure guide to decisionmaking, the choice of the standard for a particular variety of adjudication does, I think, reflect a very fundamental assessment of the comparative social costs of erroneous factual determinations.2

To explain why I think this so, I begin by stating two propositions, neither of which I believe can be fairly disputed. First, in a judicial proceeding in which there is a dispute about the facts of some earlier event, the factfinder cannot acquire unassailably accurate knowledge of what happened. Instead, all the factfinder can acquire is a belief of what probably happened. The intensity of this belief — the degree to which a factfinder is convinced that a given act actually occurred — can, of course, vary. In this regard, a standard of proof represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication. Although the phrases “preponderance of the evidence” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” are quantitatively imprecise, they do communicate to the finder of fact different notions concerning the degree of confidence he is expected to have in the correctness of his factual conclusions.

A second proposition, which is really nothing more than a corollary of the first, is that the trier of fact will sometimes, despite his best efforts, be wrong in his factual conclusions. In a lawsuit between two parties, a factual error can make a difference in one of two ways. First, it can result in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the true facts warrant a judgment for the defendant. The analogue in a criminal case would be the conviction *371of an innocent man. On the other hand, an erroneous factual determination can result in a judgment for the defendant when the true facts justify a judgment in plaintiff's favor. The criminal analogue would be the acquittal of a guilty man.

The standard of proof influences the relative frequency of these two types of erroneous outcomes. If, for example, the standard of proof for a criminal trial were a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be a smaller risk of factual errors that result in freeing guilty persons, but a far greater risk of factual errors that result in convicting the innocent. Because the standard of proof affects the comparative frequency of these two types of erroneous outcomes, the choice of the standard to be applied in a particular kind of litigation should, in a rational world, reflect an assessment of the comparative social disutility of each.

When one makes such an assessment, the reason for different standards of proof in civil as opposed to criminal litigation becomes apparent. In a civil suit between two private parties for money damages, for example, we view it as no more serious in general for there to be an erroneous verdict in the defendant's favor than for there to be an erroneous verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. A preponderance of the evidence standard therefore seems peculiarly appropriate for, as explained most sensibly,3 it simply requires the trier of fact “to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party *372who has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the fact’s existence.” 4

In a criminal case, on the other hand, we do not view the social disutility of convicting an innocent man as equivalent to the disutility of acquitting someone who is guilty. As Mr. Justice Brennan wrote for the Court in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526 (1958):

“There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value — as a criminal defendant his liberty — this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden ... of persuading the fact-finder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In this context, I view the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case as bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free. It is only because of the nearly complete and long-standing acceptance of the reasonable-doubt standard by the States in criminal trials that the Court has not before today had to hold explicitly that due process, as an expression of fundamental procedural fairness,5 requires a more stringent standard for criminal trials than for ordinary civil litigation.

*373II

When one assesses the consequences of an erroneous factual determination in a juvenile delinquency proceeding in which a youth is accused of a crime, I think it must be concluded that, while the consequences are *374not identical to those in a criminal case, the differences will not support a distinction in the standard of proof. First, and of paramount importance, a factual error here, as in a criminal case, exposes the accused to a complete loss of his personal liberty through a state-imposed confinement away from his home, family, and friends. And, second, a delinquency determination, to some extent at least, stigmatizes a youth in that it is by definition bottomed on a finding that the accused committed a crime.6 Although there are no doubt costs to society (and possibly even to the youth himself) in letting a guilty youth go free, I think here, as in a criminal case, it is far worse to declare an innocent youth a delinquent. I therefore agree that a juvenile court judge should be no less convinced of the factual conclusion that the accused committed the criminal act with which he is charged than would be required in a criminal trial.

Ill

I wish to emphasize, as I did in my separate opinion in Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 65, that there is no automatic con*375gruence between the procedural requirements imposed by due process in a criminal case, and those imposed by due process in juvenile cases.7 It is of great importance, in my view, that procedural- strictures not be constitutionally imposed that jeopardize “the essential elements of the State’s purpose” in creating juvenile courts, id,., at 72. In this regard, I think it worth emphasizing that the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile committed a criminal act before he is found to be a delinquent does not (1) interfere with the worthy goal of rehabilitating the juvenile, (2) make any significant difference in the extent to which a youth is stigmatized as a “criminal” because he has been found to be a delinquent, or (3) burden the juvenile courts with a procedural requirement that will make juvenile adjudications significantly more time consuming, or rigid. Today’s decision simply requires a juvenile court judge to be more confident in his belief that the youth did the act with which he has been charged.

With these observations, I join the Court’s opinion, subject only to the constitutional reservations expressed in my opinion in Gault.

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,

dissenting.

The Court’s opinion today rests entirely on the assumption that all juvenile proceedings are “criminal prosecutions,” hence subject to constitutional limitations. This derives from earlier holdings, which, like today’s *376holding, were steps eroding the differences between juvenile courts and traditional criminal courts. The original concept of the juvenile court system was to provide a benevolent and less formal means than criminal courts could provide for dealing with the special and often sensitive problems of youthful offenders. Since I see no constitutional requirement of due process sufficient to overcome the legislative judgment of the States in this area, I dissent from further strait-jacketing of an already overly restricted system. What the juvenile court system needs is not more but less of the trappings of legal procedure and judicial formalism; the juvenile court system requires breathing room and flexibility in order to survive, if it can survive the repeated assaults from this Court.

Much of the judicial attitude manifested by the Court’s opinion today and earlier holdings in this field is really a protest against inadequate juvenile court staffs and facilities; we “burn down the stable to get rid of the mice.” The lack of support and the distressing growth of juvenile crime have combined to make for a literal breakdown in many if not most juvenile courts. Constitutional problems were not seen while those courts functioned in an atmosphere where juvenile judges were not crushed with an avalanche of cases.

My hope is that today’s decision will not spell the end of a generously conceived program of compassionate treatment intended to mitigate the rigors and trauma of exposing youthful offenders to a traditional criminal court; each step we take turns the clock back to the pre-juvenile-court era. I cannot regard it as a manifestation of progress to transform juvenile courts into criminal courts, which is what we are well on the way to accomplishing. We can only hope the legislative response will not reflect our own by having these courts abolished.

*377Mr. Justice Black,

dissenting.

The majority states that “many opinions of this Court indicate that it has long been assumed that proof of. a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required.” Ante, at 362. I have joined in some of those opinions, as well as the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 802 (1952). The Court has never clearly held, however, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is either expressly or impliedly commanded by any provision of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, which in my view is made fully applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, see Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 71-75 (1947) (dissenting opinion), does by express language provide for, among other things, a right to counsel in criminal trials, a right to indictment, and the right of a defendant to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.1 And in two places the Constitution provides for trial by jury,2 but nowhere in that document is there any statement that conviction of crime requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution thus goes into some detail to spell out what kind of trial a defendant charged with crime should have, and I believe the Court has no power to add to or subtract from the procedures set forth by the Founders. I realize that it is far easier to substitute individual judges’ ideas of “fairness” for the fairness prescribed by the Constitution, but I shall not at any time surrender my belief that that document itself should be our guide, not our own concept of what is fair, decent, and fight. That this old “shock-the-conscience” test is what the Court is relying on, rather than the words of the Constitution, *378is clearly enough revealed by the reference of the majority to “fair treatment” and to the statement by the dissenting judges in the New York Court of Appeals that failure to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt amounts to a “lack of fundamental fairness.” Ante, at 359, 363. As I have said time and time again, I prefer to put my faith in the words of the written Constitution itself rather than to rely on the shifting, day-to-day standards of fairness of individual judges.

I

Our Constitution provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”3 The four words — due process of law — have been the center of substantial legal debate over the years. See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 235-236, and n. 8 (1940). Some might think that the words themselves are vague. But any possible ambiguity disappears when the phrase is viewed in the light of history and the accepted meaning of those words prior to and at the time our Constitution was written.

“Due process of law” was originally used as a shorthand expression for governmental proceedings according to the “law of the land” as it existed at the time of those proceedings. ■ Both phrases are derived from the laws of England and have traditionally been regarded as meaning the same thing. The Magna Carta provided that:

“No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise *379destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.” 4

Later English statutes reinforced and confirmed these basic freedoms. In 1350 a statute declared that “it is contained in the Great Charter of the Franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold, nor of his Franchises nor free Custom, unless it be by the Law of the Land . ...”5 Four years later another statute provided “[t]hat no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, shall be put out of Land or Tenement, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to Death, without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.” 6 And in 1363 it was provided “that no man be taken or imprisoned, nor put out of his freehold, without process of law.” 7

Drawing on these and other sources, Lord Coke, in 1642, concluded that “due process of law” was synonymous with the phrase “by law of the land.” 8 One of the earliest cases in this Court to involve the interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment declared that “[t]he words, 'due process of law,’ were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words 'by the law of the land’ in Magna Charta.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co., 18 How. 272, 276 (1856).

While it is thus unmistakably clear that “due process of law” means according to “the law of the land,” this Court has not consistently defined what “the law of the *380land” means and in my view members of this Court frequently continue to misconceive the correct interpretation of that phrase. In Murray’s Lessee, supra, Mr. Justice Curtis, speaking for the Court, stated:

“The constitution contains no description of those processes which it was intended to allow or forbid. It does not even declare what principles are to be applied to ascertain whether it be due process. It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law,’ by its mere will. To what principles, then, are we to resort to ascertain whether this process, enacted by congress, is due process? To this the answer must be twofold. We must examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions. If not found to be so, we must look to those settled usages and modes of proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of our ancestors, and which are shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of this country.” Id., at 276-277.9

Later in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 (1908), Mr. Justice Moody, again speaking for the Court, reaffirmed that “due process of law” meant “by law of the *381land,” but he went on to modify Mr. Justice Curtis’ definition of the phrase. He stated:

“First. What is due process of law may be ascertained by an examination of those settled usages and modes of proceedings existing in the common and statute law of England before the emigration of our ancestors, and shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of-this country. . . .

“Second. It does not follow, however, that a procedure settled in English law at the time of the emigration, and brought to this country and practiced by our ancestors, is an essential element of due process of law. If that were so the procedure of the first half of the seventeenth century would be fastened upon the American jurisprudence like a straight-jacket, only to be unloosed by constitutional amendment. . . .

“Third. But, consistently with the requirements of due process, no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles, to be ascertained from time to time by judicial action, which have relation to process of law and protect the citizen in his private right, and guard him against the arbitrary action of government.” Id., at 100-101.10

In those words is found the kernel of the “natural law due process” notion by which this Court frees itself from the limits of a written Constitution and sets itself loose to declare any law unconstitutional that “shocks its conscience,” deprives a person of “fundamental fairness,” or violates the principles “implicit in the concept of *382ordered liberty.” See Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 172 (1952); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937). While this approach has been frequently used in deciding so-called “procedural” questions, it has evolved into a device as easily invoked to declare invalid “substantive” laws that sufficiently shock the consciences of at least five members of this Court. See, e. g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905); Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1 (1915); Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U. S. 504 (1924); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965). I have set forth at length in prior opinions my own views that this concept is completely at odds with the basic principle that our Government is one of limited powers and that such an arrogation of unlimited authority by the judiciary cannot be supported by the language or the history of any provision of the Constitution. See, e. g., Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 68 (1947) (dissenting opinion); Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, at 507 (1965) (dissenting opinion).

In my view both Mr. Justice Curtis and Mr. Justice Moody gave “due process of law” an unjustifiably broad interpretation. For me the only correct meaning of that phrase is that our Government must proceed according to the “law of the land” — that is, according to written constitutional and statutory provisions as interpreted by court decisions. The Due Process Clause, in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, in and of itself does not add to those provisions, but in effect states that our governments are governments of law and constitutionally bound to act only according to law.11 To some that view may seem a degrading and niggardly view of what is undoubtedly a fundamental part of our basic freedoms. *383But that criticism fails to note the historical importance of our Constitution and the virtual revolution in the history of the government of nations that was achieved by forming a government that from the beginning had its limits of power set forth in one written document that *384also made it abundantly clear that all governmental actions affecting life, liberty, and property were to be according to law.

For years our ancestors had struggled in an attempt to bring England under one written constitution, consolidating in one place all the threads of the fundamental law of that nation. They almost succeeded in that attempt,12 but it was not until after the American Revolution that men were able to achieve that long-sought goal. But the struggle had not been simply to put all the constitutional law in one document, it was also to make certain that men would be governed by law, not the arbitrary fiat of the man or men in power. Our ancestors’ ancestors had known the tyranny of the kings and the rule of man and it was, in my view, in order to insure against such actions that the Founders wrote into our own Magna Carta the fundamental principle of the rule of law, as expressed in the historically meaningful phrase “due process of law.” The many decisions of this Court that have found in that phrase a blanket authority to govern the country according to the views of at least five members of this institution have ignored the essential meaning of the very words they invoke. When this Court assumes for itself the power to declare any law — state or federal — unconstitutional because it offends the majority’s own views of what is fundamental and decent in our society, our Nation ceases to be governed according to the “law of the land” and instead becomes one governed ultimately by the “law of the judges.”

It can be, and has been, argued that when this Court strikes down a legislative act because it offends the idea of “fundamental fairness,” it furthers the basic thrust of our Bill of Rights by protecting individual freedom. *385But that argument ignores the effect of such decisions on perhaps the most fundamental individual liberty of our people — the right of each man to participate in the self-government of his society. Our Federal Government was set up as one of limited powers, but it was also given broad power to do all that was “necessary and proper” to carry out its basic purpose of governing the Nation, so long as those powers were not exercised contrary to the limitations set forth in the Constitution. And the States, to the extent they are not restrained by the provisions in that document, were to be left free to govern themselves in accordance with their own views of fairness and decency. Any legislature presumably passes a law because it thinks the end result will help more than hinder and will thus further the liberty of the society as a whole. The people, through their elected representatives, may of course be wrong in making those determinations, but the right of self-government that our Constitution preserves is just as important as any of the specific individual freedoms preserved in the Bill of Rights. The liberty of government by the people, in my opinion, should never be denied by this Court except when the decision of the people as stated in laws passed by their chosen representatives, conflicts with the express or necessarily implied commands of our Constitution.

II

I admit a strong, persuasive argument can be made for a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases — and the majority has made that argument well — but it is not for me as a judge to say for that reason that Congress or the States are without constitutional power to establish another standard that the Constitution does not otherwise forbid. It is quite true that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has long been required in federal criminal trials. It is also true that *386this requirement is almost universally found in the governing laws of the States. And as long as a particular jurisdiction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then the Due Process Clause commands that every trial in that jurisdiction must adhere to that standard. See Turner v. United States, 396 U. S. 398, 430 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting). But when, as here, a State through its duly constituted legislative branch decides to apply a different standard, then that standard, unless it is otherwise unconstitutional, must be applied to insure that persons are treated according to the “law of the land.” The State of New York has made such a decision, and in my view nothing in the Due Process Clause invalidates it.

*198Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question here is the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause of burdening the defendant in a New York State murder trial with proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as defined by New York law.

I

After a brief and unstable marriage, the appellant, Gordon Patterson, Jr., became estranged from his wife, Roberta. Roberta resumed an association with John Northrup, a neighbor to whom she had been engaged prior to her marriage to appellant. On December 27, 1970, Patterson borrowed a rifle from an acquaintance and went to the residence of his father-in-law. There, he observed his wife through a window in a state of semiundress in the presence of John Northrup. He entered the house and killed Northrup by shooting him twice in the head.

Patterson was charged with second-degree murder. In New York there are two elements of this crime: (1) “intent to cause the death of another person”; and (2) “caus[ing] the death of such person or of a third person.” N. Y. Penal Law § 125.25 (McKinney 1975) ,1 Malice aforethought is not an element of the crime. In addition, the State permits a person accused of murder to raise an affirmative defense that he “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.” 2

*199New York also recognizes the crime of manslaughter. A person is guilty of manslaughter if he intentionally kills another person “under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.”3 Appellant confessed before trial to killing Northrup, but at trial he raised the defense of extreme emotional disturbance.4

The jury was instructed as to the elements of the crime of murder. Focusing on the element of intent, the trial court charged:

“Before you, considering all of the evidence, can convict this defendant or anyone of murder, you must believe and decide that the People have established beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended, in firing the gun, to kill *200either the victim himself or some other human being. . . .

“Always remember that you must not expect or require the defendant to prove to your satisfaction that his acts were done without the intent to kill. Whatever proof he may have attempted, however far he may have gone in an effort to convince you of his innocence or guiltlessness, he is not obliged, he is not obligated to prove anything. It is always the People's burden to prove bis guilt, and to prove that he intended to kill in this instance beyond a reasonable doubt.” App. A70-A71.5

The jury was further instructed, consistently with New York law, that the defendant had the burden of proving his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury was told that if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had intentionally killed Northrup but that appellant had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, it had to find appellant guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.

The jury found appellant guilty of murder. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the Appellate Division affirmed. While appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was pending, this Court decided Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975), in which the Court declared Maine’s murder statute unconstitutional. Under the Maine statute, a person accused of murder could rebut the statutory presumption that he com*201mitted the offense with “malice aforethought” by proving that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. The Court held that this scheme improperly shifted the burden of persuasion from the prosecutor to the defendant and was therefore a violation of due process. In the Court of Appeals appellant urged that New York’s murder statute is functionally equivalent to the one struck down in Mullaney and that therefore his conviction should be reversed.6

The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s argument, holding that the New York murder statute is consistent with due process. 39 N. Y. 2d 288, 347 N. E. 2d 898 (1976). The Court distinguished Mullaney on the ground that the New York statute involved no shifting of the burden to the defendant to disprove any fact essential to the offense charged since the New York affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance bears no direct relationship to any element of murder. This appeal ensued, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U.S. 813 (1976). We affirm.

II

It goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government, Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 134 (1954) (plurality opinion), and that we should not lightly construe the Constitution so as to intrude upon the administration of justice by the individual States. Among other things, it is normally “within the power of the State to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out, including the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion,” and its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription *202under the Due Process Clause unless “it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 523 (1958); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 798 (1952); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934).

In determining whether New York’s allocation to the defendant of proving the mitigating circumstances of severe emotional disturbance is consistent with due process, it is therefore relevant to note that this defense is a considerably expanded version of the common-law defense of heat of passion on sudden provocation and that at common law the burden of proving the latter, as well as other affirmative defenses — indeed, “all... circumstances of justification, excuse or alleviation” — rested on the defendant. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *201; M. Foster, Crown Law 255 (1762); Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, at 693-694.7 This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Commonwealth v. York, 50 Mass. 93 (1845).8

In 1895 the common-law view was abandoned with respect to the insanity defense in federal prosecutions. Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469 (1895). This ruling had wide impact on the practice in the federal courts with respect to the burden of proving various affirmative defenses, and the prose*203cution in a majority of jurisdictions in this country sooner or later came to shoulder the burden of proving the sanity of the accused and of disproving the facts constituting other affirmative defenses, including provocation. Davis was not a constitutional ruling, however, as Leland v. Oregon, supra, made clear.9

*204At issue in Leland v. Oregon was the constitutionality under the Due Process Clause of the Oregon rule that the defense of insanity must be proved by the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Noting that Davis “obviously establish [ed] no constitutional doctrine,” 343 U. S., at 797, the Court refused to strike down the Oregon scheme, saying that the burden of proving all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, including the elements of premeditation and deliberation, was placed on the State under Oregon procedures and remained there throughout the trial. To convict, the jury was required to find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, based on all the evidence, including the evidence going to the issue of insanity. Only then was the jury “to consider separately the issue of legal sanity per se . . . .” Id., at 795. This practice did not offend the Due Process Clause even though among the 20 States then placing the burden of proving his insanity on the defendant, Oregon was alone in requiring him to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In 1970, the Court declared that the Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U. S. *205358, 364 (1970). Five years later, in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975), the Court further announced that under the Maine law of homicide, the burden could not constitutionally be placed on the defendant of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing had occurred in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. The Chief Justice and Me. Justice Rehnquist, concurring, expressed their understanding that the Mullaney decision did not call into question the ruling in Leland v. Oregon, supra, with respect to the proof of insanity.

Subsequéntly, the Court confirmed that it remained constitutional to burden the defendant with proving his insanity defense when it dismissed, as not raising a substantial federal question, a case in which the appellant specifically challenged the continuing validity of Leland v. Oregon. This occurred in Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U. S. 877 (1976), an appeal from a Delaware conviction which, in reliance on Leland, had been affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court over the claim that the Delaware statute was unconstitutional because it burdened the defendant with proving his affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. The claim in this Court was that Leland had been overruled by Winship and Mullaney. We dismissed the appeal as not presenting a substantial federal question. Cf. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, 344 (1975).

Ill

We cannot conclude that Patterson’s conviction under the New York law deprived him of due process of law. The crime of murder is defined by the statute, which represents a recent revision of the state criminal code, as causing the death of another person with intent to do so. The death, the intent to kill, and causation are the facts that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if a person is to be convicted of murder. No further facts are either presumed or inferred *206in order to constitute the crime. The statute does provide an affirmative defense — that the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation — which, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, would reduce the crime to manslaughter, an offense defined in a separate section of the statute. It is plain enough that if the intentional killing is shown, the State intends to deal with the defendant as a murderer unless he demonstrates the mitigating circumstances.

Here, the jury was instructed in accordance with the statute, and the guilty verdict confirms that the State successfully carried its burden of proving the facts of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing in the evidence, including any evidence that might have been offered with respect to Patterson’s mental state at the time of the crime, raised a reasonable doubt about his guilt as a murderer; and clearly the evidence failed to convince the jury that Patterson’s affirmative defense had been made out. It seems to us that the State satisfied the mandate of Winship that it prove beyond a reasonable doubt “every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [Patterson was] charged.” 397 U. S., at 364.

In convicting Patterson under its murder statute, New York did no more than Leland and Rivera permitted it to do without violating the Due Process Clause. Under those cases, once the facts constituting a crime are established beyond a reasonable doubt, based on all the evidence including the evidence of the defendant’s mental state, the State may refuse to sustain the affirmative defense of insanity unless demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence.

The New York law on extreme emotional disturbance follows this pattern. This affirmative defense, which the Court of Appeals described as permitting “the defendant to show that his actions were caused by a mental infirmity not arising to the level of insanity, and that he is less culpable for having committed them,” 39 N. Y. 2d, at 302, 347 N. E. 2d, at 907, *207does not serve to negative any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict of murder. It constitutes a separate issue on which the defendant is required to carry the burden of persuasion; and unless we are to overturn Leland and Rivera, New York has not violated the Due Process Clause, and Patterson’s conviction must be sustained.

We are unwilling to reconsider Leland and Rivera. But even if we were to hold that a State must prove sanity to convict once that fact is put in issue, it would not necessarily follow that a State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact, the existence or nonexistence of which it is willing to recognize as an exculpatory or mitigating circumstance affecting the degree of culpability or the severity of the punishment. Here, in revising its criminal code, New York provided the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, a substantially expanded version of the older heat-of-passion concept; but it was willing to do so only if the facts making out the defense were established by the defendant with sufficient certainty. The State was itself unwilling to undertake to establish the absence of those facts beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps fearing that proof would be too difficult and that too many persons deserving treatment as murderers would escape that punishment if the evidence need merely raise a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s emotional state. It has been said that the new criminal code of New York contains some 25 affirmative defenses which exculpate or mitigate but which must be established by the defendant to be operative.10 The Due Process Clause, as we see it, does not *208put New York to the choice of abandoning those defenses or undertaking to disprove their existence in order to convict of a crime which otherwise is within its constitutional powers to sanction by substantial punishment.

The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case is “bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.” Winship, 397 U. S., at 372 (Harlan, J., concurring). The social cost of placing the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is thus an increased risk that the guilty will go free. While it is clear that our society has willingly chosen to bear a substantial burden in order to protect the innocent, it is equally clear that the risk it must bear is not without limits; and Mr. Justice Harlan’s aphorism provides little guidance for determining what those limits are. Due process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. Punishment of those found guilty by a jury, for example, is not forbidden merely because there is a remote possibility in some instances that an innocent person might go to jail.

It is said that the common-law rule permits a State to *209punish one as a murderer when it is as likely as not that he acted in the heat of passion or under severe emotional distress and when, if he did, he is guilty only of manslaughter. But this has always been the case in those jurisdictions adhering to the traditional rule. It is also very likely true that fewer convictions of murder would occur if New York were required to negative the affirmative defense at issue here. But in each instance of a murder conviction under the present law, New York will have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has intentionally killed another person, an act which it is not disputed the State may constitutionally criminalize and punish. If the State nevertheless chooses to recognize a factor that mitigates the degree of criminality or punishment, we think the State may assure itself that the fact has been established with reasonable certainty. To recognize at all a mitigating circumstance does not require the State to prove its nonexistence in each case in which the fact is put in issue, if in its judgment this would be too cumbersome, too expensive, and too inaccurate.11

*210We thus decline to adopt as a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused. Traditionally, due process has required that only the most basic procedural safeguards be observed; more subtle balancing of society’s interests against those of the accused have been left to the legislative branch. We therefore will not disturb the balance struck in previous cases holding that the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the offense of which the defendant is charged. Proof of the nonexistence of all affirmative defenses has never been constitutionally required; and we perceive no reason to fashion such a rule in this case and apply it to the statutory defense at issue here.

This view may seem to permit state legislatures to reallocate burdens of proof by labeling as affirmative defenses at least some elements of the crimes now defined in their statutes. But there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard. “[I]t is not within the province of a legislature to declare an individual guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime.” McFarland v. American Sugar Rfg. Co., 241 U. S. 79, 86 (1916). The legislature cannot “validly command that the finding of an indictment, or mere proof of the identity of the accused, should create a presumption of the existence of all the facts essential to guilt.” Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 469 (1943). See also Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S., at 523-525. Morrison v. California, 291 U. S. 82 (1934), also makes the point with sufficient clarity.

*211Long before Winship, the universal rule in this country was that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, the long-accepted rule was that it was constitutionally permissible to provide that various affirmative defenses were to be proved by the defendant. This did not lead to such abuses or to such widespread redefinition of crime and reduction of the prosecution's burden that a new constitutional rule was required.12 This was not the problem to which Winship was addressed. Nor does the fact that a majority of the States have now assumed the burden of disproving affirmative defenses — for whatever reasons — mean that those States that strike a different balance are in violation of the Constitution.13

*212IY

It is urged that Mullaney v. Wilbur necessarily invalidates Patterson’s conviction.. In Mullaney the charge was murder,14 which the Maine statute defined as the unlawful killing of a human being “with malice aforethought, either express or implied.” The trial court instructed the jury that the words “malice aforethought” were most important because “malice *213aforethought is an essential and indispensable element of the crime of murder.” Malice, as the statute indicated and as the court instructed, could be implied and was to be implied from “any deliberate, cruel act committed by one person against another suddenly ... or without a considerable provocation,” in which event an intentional killing was murder unless by a preponderance of the evidence it was shown that the act was committed “in the heat of passion, on sudden provocation.” The instructions emphasized that “ 'malice aforethought and heat of passion on sudden provocation are two inconsistent things’; thus, by proving the latter the defendant would negate the former.” 421 U. S., at 686-687 (citation omitted).

Wilbur’s conviction, which followed, was affirmed. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that murder and manslaughter were varying degrees of the crime of felonious homicide and that the presumption of malice arising from the unlawful killing was a mere policy presumption operating to cast on the defendant the burden of proving provocation if he was to be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder — a burden which the Maine law had allocated to him at least since the mid-1800’s.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit then ordered that a writ of habeas corpus issue, holding that the presumption unconstitutionally shifted to the defendant the burden of proof with respect to an essential element of the crime. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court disputed this interpretation of Maine law in State v. Lafferty, 309 A. 2d 647 (1973), declaring that malice aforethought, in the sense of premeditation, was not an element of the crime of murder and that the federal court had erroneously equated the presumption of malice with a presumption of premeditation.

“Maine law does not rely on a presumption of 'premeditation’ (as Wilbur v. Mullaney assumed) to prove an essential element of unlawful homicide punishable as murder. *214Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of 'malice aforethought’ (in the sense of 'premeditation’) is not essential to conviction. . . . [T]he failure of the State to prove 'premeditation’ in this context is not fatal to such a prosecution because, by legal definition under Maine law, a killing becomes unlawful and punishable as 'murder’ on proof of 'any deliberate, cruel act, committed by one person against another, suddenly without any, or without a considerable provocation.’ State v. Neal, 37 Me. 468, 470 (1854). Neal has been frequently cited with approval by our Court.” Id., at 664-665. (Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)

When the judgment of the First Circuit was vacated for reconsideration in the light of Lafferty, that court reaffirmed its view that Wilbur’s conviction was unconstitutional. This Court, accepting the Maine court’s interpretation of the Maine law, unanimously agreed with the Court of Appeals that Wilbur’s due process rights had been invaded by the presumption casting upon him the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted in the heat ,of passion upon sudden provocation.

Mullaney’s holding, it is argued, is that the State may not permit the blameworthiness of an act or the severity of punishment authorized for its commission to depend on the presence or absence of an identified fact without assuming the burden of proving the presence or absence of that fact, as the case may be, beyond a reasonable doubt.15 In our view, *215the Mullaney holding should not be so broadly read. The concurrence of two Justices in Mullaney was necessarily contrary to such a reading; and a majority of the Court refused to so understand and apply Mullaney when Rivera was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mullaney surely held that a State must prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming that ingredient upon proof of the other elements of the offense. This is true even though the State’s practice, as in Maine, had been traditionally to the contrary. Such shifting of the burden of persuasion with respect to a fact which the State deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed is impermissible under the Due Process Clause.

It was unnecessary to go further in Mullaney. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court made it clear that malice aforethought, which was mentioned in the statutory definition of the crime, was not equivalent to premeditation and that the presumption of malice traditionally arising in intentional homicide cases carried no factual meaning insofar as premeditation was concerned. Even so, a killing became murder in Maine when it resulted from a deliberate, cruel act committed by one person against another, “suddenly without any, or without a considerable provocation.” State v. Lafferty, supra, at 665. Premeditation was not within the definition of murder; but *216malice, in the sense of the absence of provocation, was part of the definition of that crime. Yet malice, i. e., lack of provocation, was presumed and could be rebutted by the defendant only by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted with heat of passion upon sudden provocation. In Mullaney we held that however traditional this mode of proceeding might have been, it is contrary to the Due Process Clause as construed in Winship.

As we have explained, nothing was presumed or implied against Patterson; and his conviction is not invalid under any of our prior cases. The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice Powell,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.

In the name of preserving legislative flexibility, the Court today drains In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), of much of its vitality. Legislatures do require broad discretion in the drafting of criminal laws, but the Court surrenders to the legislative branch a significant part of its responsibility to protect the presumption of innocence.

I

An understanding of the import of today’s decision requires a comparison of the statutes at issue here with the statutes and practices of Maine struck down by a unanimous Court just two years ago in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975).

A

Maine’s homicide laws embodied the common-law distinctions along with the colorful common-law language. Murder *217was defined in the statute as the unlawful killing of a human being “with malice aforethought, either express or implied.” Manslaughter was a killing “in the heat of passion, on sudden provocation, without express or implied malice aforethought.” Id., at 686, and n. 3. Although “express malice” at one point may have had its own significant independent meaning, see Perkins, A Re-Examination of Malice Aforethought, 43 Yale L. J. 537, 546-552 (1934), in practice a finding that the killing was committed with malice aforethought had come to mean simply that heat of passion was absent. Indeed, the trial court in Mullaney expressly charged the jury that “malice aforethought and heat of passion on sudden provocation are two inconsistent things.” 421 U. S., at 686-687. And the Maine Supreme Judicial Court had held that instructions concerning express malice (in the sense of premeditation) were unnecessary. The only inquiry for the jury in deciding whether a homicide amounted to murder or manslaughter was the inquiry into heat of passion on sudden provocation. State v. Lafferty, 309 A. 2d 647, 664-665 (Me. 1973). See 421 U. S., at 686 n. 4.

Our holding in Mullaney found no constitutional defect in these statutory provisions. Rather, the defect in Maine practice lay in its allocation of the burden of persuasion with respect to the crucial factor distinguishing murder from manslaughter. In Maine, juries were instructed that if the prosecution proved that the homicide was both intentional and unlawful, the crime was to be considered murder unless the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. Only if the defendant carried this burden would the offense be reduced to manslaughter.

New York’s present homicide laws had their genesis in lingering dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the common-law framework that this Court confronted in Mullaney. Critics charged that the archaic language tended to obscure the fac*218tors of real importance in the jury’s decision. Also, only a limited range of aggravations would lead to mitigation under the common-law formula, usually only those resulting from direct provocation by the victim himself. It was thought that actors whose emotions were stirred by other forms of outrageous conduct, even conduct by someone other than the ultimate victim, also should be punished as manslaughterers rather than murderers. Moreover, the common-law formula was generally applied with rather strict objectivity. Only provocations that might cause the hypothetical reasonable man to lose control could be considered. And even provocations of that sort were inadequate to reduce the crime to manslaughter if enough time had passed for the reasonable man’s passions to cool, regardless of whether the actor’s own thermometer had registered any decline. See generally W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law 528-530, 539-540, 571-582 (1972); Wechsler, Codification of Criminal Law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, 68 Colum. L. Rev. 1425, 1446 (1968); ALI, Model Penal Code § 201.3, Comment (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959); Perkins, supra. Cf. B. Cardozo, Law and Literature and Other Essays 99-101 (1931).

The American Law Institute took the lead in moving to remedy these difficulties. As part of its commendable undertaking to prepare a Model Penal Code, it endeavored to bring modern insights to bear on the law of homicide. The result was a proposal to replace “heat of passion” with the moderately broader concept of “extreme mental or emotional disturbance.” The proposal first appeared in a tentative draft published in 1959, and it was accepted by the Institute and included as § 210.3 of the 1962 Proposed Official Draft.

At about this time the New York Legislature undertook the preparation of a new criminal code, and the Revised Penal Law of 1967 was the ultimate result. The new code adopted virtually word for word the ALI formula for distinguishing murder from manslaughter. N. Y. Penal Law §§ 125.20 (2), *219125.25 (l)(a) (McKinney 1975).1 Under current New York law,2 those who kill intentionally are guilty of murder. But there is an affirmative defense left open to a defendant: If his act was committed “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse,” the crime is reduced to manslaughter. The supposed defects of a formulation like Maine’s have been removed. Some of the rigid objectivity of the common law is relieved, since reasonableness is to be determined “from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circum*220stances as the defendant believed them to be.” § 125.25 (1) (a). The New York law also permits mitigation when emotional disturbance results from situations other than direct provocation by the victim. And the last traces of confusing archaic language have been removed. There is no mention of malice aforethought, no attempt to give a name to the state of mind that exists when extreme emotional disturbance is not present. The statute is framed in lean prose modeled after the ALI approach, giving operative descriptions of the crucial factors rather than attempting to attach the classical labels.

Despite these changes, the major factor that distinguishes murder from manslaughter in New York — “extreme emotional disturbance” — is undeniably the modern equivalent of “heat of passion.” The ALI drafters made this abundantly clear. They were not rejecting the notion that some of those who kill in an emotional outburst deserve lesser punishment; they were merely refining the concept to relieve some of the problems with the classical formulation. See ALI, Model Penal Code, § 201.3, Comment, pp. 46-48 (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959). The New York drafters left no doubt about their reliance on the ALI work. See 39 N. Y. 2d 288, 300-301, 347 N. E. 2d 898, 906 (1976). Both the majority and the dissenters in the New York Court of Appeals agreed that extreme emotional disturbance is simply “a new formulation” for the traditional language of heat of passion. Id., at 301, 347 N. E. 2d, at 906; id., at 312, 347 N. E. 2d, at 913-914 (Cooke, J., dissenting).

But in one important respect the New York drafters chose to parallel Maine’s practice precisely, departing markedly from the ALI recommendation. Under the Model Penal Code the prosecution must prove the. absence of emotional disturbance beyond a reasonable doubt once the issue is properly raised. See ALI, Model Penal Code §§ 1.12, 210.3 (Proposed Official Draft 1962); id., § 1.13, Comment, pp. 108-118 (Tent'. Draft No. 4, 1955). In New York, however, extreme emotional disturbance constitutes an affirmative defense rather *221than a simple defense. Consequently the defendant bears not only the burden of production on this issue; he has the burden of persuasion as well. N.' Y. Penal Law § 25.00 (McKinney 1975).

B

Mullaney held invalid Maine’s requirement that the defendant prove heat of passion. The Court today, without disavowing the unanimous holding of Mullaney, approves New York’s requirement that the defendant prove extreme emotional disturbance. The Court manages to run a constitutional boundary line through the barely visible space that separates Maine’s law from New York’s. It does so on the basis of distinctions in language that are formalistic rather than substantive.

This result is achieved by a narrowly literal parsing of the holding in Winship: “[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” 397 U. S., at 364. The only “facts” necessary to constitute a crime are said to be those that appear on the face of the statute as a part of the definition of the crime.3 Maine’s statute was invalid, the Court reasons, because it “defined [murder] as the unlawful killing of a human being 'with malice aforethought, either express or implied.’ ” Ante, at 212. “[MJalice,” the Court reiterates, “in the sense of the absence of provocation, was part of the definition of that crime.” Ante, at 216. Winship was violated only because this “fact” — malice—was “presumed” unless the defendant persuaded the jury otherwise by showing that he acted in the heat of passion.4 New York, in form presuming *222no affirmative “fact” against Patterson,5 and blessed with a statute drafted in the leaner language of the 20th century, escapes constitutional scrutiny unscathed even though the effect on the defendant of New York’s placement of the burden of persuasion is exactly the same as Maine’s. See 39 N. Y. 2d, at 312-313, 347 N. E. 2d, at 913-914 (Cooke, J., dissenting).

This explanation of the Mullaney holding bears little re*223semblance to the basic rationale of that decision.6 But this is not the cause of greatest concern. The test the Court today establishes allows a legislature to shift, virtually at will, the-burden of persuasion with respect to any factor in a criminal case, so long as it is careful not to mention the nonexistence of that factor in the statutory language that defines the crime. The sole requirement is that any references to the factor be confined to those sections that provide for an affirmative defense.7

Perhaps the Court’s interpretation of Winship is consistent with the letter of the holding in that case. But little of the spirit survives. Indeed, the Court scarcely could distinguish this case from Mullaney without closing its eyes to the constitutional values for which Winship stands. As Mr. Justice Harlan observed in Winship, “& standard of proof represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of *224confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.” 397 U. S., at 370 (concurring opinion). See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526 (1958). Explaining Mul-laney, the Court says today, in effect, that society demands full confidence before a Maine factfinder determines that heat of passion is missing — a demand so insistent that this Court invoked the Constitution to enforce it over the contrary decision by the State. But we are told that society is willing to tolerate far less confidence in New York’s factual determination of precisely the same functional issue. One must ask what possibly could explain this difference in societal demands. According to the Court, it is because Maine happened to attach a name — “malice aforethought” — to the absence of heat of passion, whereas New York refrained from giving a name to the absence of extreme emotional disturbance. See 39 N. Y. 2d, at 313, 347 N. E. 2d, at 914 (Cooke, J., dissenting).

With all respect, this type of constitutional adjudication is indefensibly formalistic. A limited but significant check on possible abuses in the criminal law now becomes an exercise in arid formalities. What Winship and Mullaney had sought to teach about the limits a free society places on its procedures to safeguard the liberty of its citizens becomes a rather simplistic lesson in statutory draftsmanship. Nothing in the Court’s opinion prevents a legislature from applying this new learning to many of the classical elements of the crimes it punishes.8 It would be preferable, if the Court has found *225reason to reject the rationale of Winship and Mullaney, simply and straightforwardly to overrule those precedents.

The Court understandably manifests some uneasiness that its formalistic approach will give legislatures too much latitude in shifting the burden of persuasion. And so it issues a warning-that “there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this regard.” Ante, at 210; The Court thereby concedes that legislative abuses may occur and that they must be curbed by the judicial branch. But if the State is careful to conform to the drafting formulas articulated today, the constitutional limits are anything but “obvious.” This decision simply leaves us without a conceptual framework for distinguishing abuses from legitimate legislative adjustments of the burden of persuasion in criminal cases.9

II

It is unnecessary for the Court to retreat to a formalistic test for applying Winship. Careful attention to the Mullaney decision reveals the principles that should control in this and like cases. Winship held that the prosecution must bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt “ ‘the existence of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.’ ” 397 U. S., at 363, quoting Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 493 (1895). In Mullaney we concluded that heat of passion was one of the “facts” described in Winship — that is, a *226factor as to which the prosecution must bear the burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt. 421 U. S., at 704. We reached that result only after making two careful inquiries. First, we noted that the presence or absence of heat of passion made a substantial difference in punishment of the offender and in the stigma associated with the conviction. Id., at 697-701. Second, we reviewed the history, in England and this country, of the factor at issue. Id., at 692-696. Central to the holding in Mullaney was our conclusion that heat of passion “has been, almost from the inception of the common law of homicide, the single most important factor in determining the degree of culpability attaching to an unlawful homicide.” Id., at 696.

Implicit in these two inquiries are the principles that should govern this case. The Due Process Clause requires that the prosecutor bear the burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt only if the factor at issue makes a substantial difference in punishment and stigma. The requirement of course applies a fortiori if the factor makes the difference between guilt and innocence. But a substantial difference in punishment alone is not enough. It also must be shown that in the Anglo-American legal tradition 10 the factor in question historically has held that level of importance.11 If either branch *227of the test is not met, then the legislature retains its traditional authority over matters of proof. But to permit a shift in the burden of persuasion when both branches of this test are satisfied would invite the undermining of the presumption of innocence, “that bedrock 'axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’ ” In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 363, quoting from Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, 453 (1895). See Cool v. United States, 409 U. S. 100, 104 (1972); Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U. S. 203, 204 (1972); Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 486-487 (1972); Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 275 (1952); Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 236 (1911); Davis v. United States, supra. This is not a test that rests on empty form, for “Winship is concerned with substance rather than . . . formalism.” Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S., at 699.

I hardly need add that New York’s provisions allocating the burden of persuasion as to “extreme emotional disturbance” are unconstitutional when judged by these standards. “Extreme emotional disturbance” is, as the Court of Appeals recognized, the direct descendant of the “heat of passion” factor considered at length in Mullaney. I recognize, of course, that the differences between Maine and New York law are not unimportant to the defendant; there is a somewhat broader opportunity for mitigation. But none of those distinctions is relevant here. The presence or absence of extreme emotional disturbance makes a critical difference in punishment and stigma, and throughout our history the resolution of this issue of fact, although expressed in somewhat different terms, has distinguished manslaughter from murder. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *190-193, 198-201.

Ill

The Court beats its retreat from Winship apparently because of a concern that otherwise the federal judiciary will in-*228trade too far into substantive choices concerning the content of a State’s criminal law.12 The concern is legitimate, see generally Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514, 533-534 (1968) (plurality opinion); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 803 (1952)' (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), but misplaced. Winship and Mullaney are no more than what they purport to be: decisions addressing the procedural requirements that States must meet to comply with due process. They are not outposts for policing the substantive boundaries of the criminal law.

The Winship/Mullaney test identifies those factors of such importance, historically, in determining punishment and stigma that the Constitution forbids shifting to the defendant the burden of persuasion when such a factor is at issue. Win-ship and Mullaney specify only the procedure that is required when a State elects to use such a factor as part of its substantive criminal law. They do not say that the State must elect to use it. For example, where a State has chosen to retain the traditional distinction between murder and manslaughter, as have New York and Maine, the burden of persuasion must remain on the prosecution with respect to the distinguishing factor, in view of its decisive historical importance. But nothing in Mullaney or Winship precludes a State from'abolishing the distinction between murder and manslaughter and treating all unjustifiable homicide as murder.13 In this sig*229nificant respect, neither Winship nor Mullaney eliminates the substantive flexibility that should remain in legislative hands.

Moreover, it is unlikely that more than a few factors — although important ones — for which a shift in the burden of persuasion seriously would be considered will come within the Mullaney holding. With some exceptions, then, the State has the authority “to recognize a factor that mitigates the degree of criminality or punishment” without having “to prove its nonexistence in each case in which the fact is put in issue.” Ante, at 209. New ameliorative affirmative defenses,14 about *230which the Court expresses concern, generally remain undisturbed by the holdings in Winship and Mullaney — and need not be disturbed by a sound holding reversing Patterson’s conviction.15

Furthermore, as we indicated in Mullaney, 421 U. S., at 701-702, n. 28, even as to those factors upon which the prosecution must bear the burden of persuasion, the State retains an important procedural device to avoid jury confusion and prevent the prosecution from being unduly hampered. The State normally may shift to the defendant the burden of production,16 that is, the burden of going forward with sufficient *231evidence “to justify [a reasonable] doubt upon the issue.” 17 ALI, Model Penal Code § 1.13, Comment, p. 110 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955). If the defendant’s evidence does not cross this threshold, the issue — be it malice, extreme emotional disturbance, self-defense, or whatever — will not be submitted to the jury.18 See Sansone v. United States, 380 U. S. 343, 349 (1965); Stevenson v. United States, 162 U. S. 313, 314-316 (1896). Ever since this Court’s decision in Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469 (1895), federal prosecutors have borne the burden of persuasion with respect to factors like insanity, self-defense, and malice or provocation, once the defendant has carried this burden of production. See, e. g., Blake v. United States, 407 F. 2d 908, 910-911 (CA5 1969) (en banc) (insanity); Frank v. United States, 42 F. 2d 623, 629 (CA9 1930) (self-defense); United States v. Alexander, 152 U. S. App. D. C. 371, 389-395, 471 F. 2d 923, 941-947, cert. denied sub nom. Murdock v. United States, 409 U. S. 1044 (1972) (provocation). I know of no indication that this *232practice has proven a noticeable handicap to effective law enforcement.19

To be sure, there will be many instances when the Winship/ Mullaney test as I perceive it will be more difficult to apply than the Court’s formula. Where I see the need for a careful and discriminating review of history, the Court finds a bright-line standard that can be applied with a quick glance at the face of the statute. But this facile test invites tinkering with the procedural safeguards of the presumption of innocence, an invitation to disregard the principles of Winship that I would not extend.

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant, Gary Duncan, was convicted of simple battery in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Under Louisiana law simple battery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and a $300 fine. Appellant sought trial by jury, but because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed,1 the trial judge denied the request. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve 60 days in the parish prison and pay a fine of $150. Appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, asserting that the denial of jury trial violated rights guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, finding “[n]o error of law in the ruling complained of,” denied appellant a writ of certiorari.2 Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. *147§ 1257 (2) appellant sought review in this Court, alleging that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution secure the right to jury trial in state criminal prosecutions where a sentence as long as two years may be imposed. We noted probable jurisdiction,3 and set the case for oral argument with No. 52, Bloom v. Illinois, post, p. 194.

Appellant was 19 years of age when tried. While driving on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish on October 18, 1966, he saw two younger cousins engaged in a conversation by the side of the road with four white boys. Knowing his cousins, Negroes who had recently transferred to a formerly all-white high school, had reported the occurrence of racial incidents at the school, Duncan stopped the car, got out, and approached the six boys. At trial the white boys and a white onlooker testified, as did appellant and his cousins. The testimony was in dispute on many points, but the witnesses agreed that appellant and the white boys spoke to each other, that appellant encouraged his cousins to break off the encounter and enter his car, and that appellant was about to enter the car himself for the purpose of driving away with his cousins. The whites testified that just before getting in the car appellant slapped Herman Landry, one of the white boys, on the elbow. The Negroes testified that appellant had not slapped Landry, but liad merely touched him. The trial judge concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan had committed simple battery, and found him guilty.

I.

The Fourteenth Amendment denies the States the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In resolving conflicting *148claims concerning the meaning of this spacious language, the Co'urt has looked increasingly to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause now protects the right to compensation for property taken by the State;4 the rights of speech, press, and religion covered by the First Amendment;5 the Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to have excluded from criminal trials any evidence illegally seized; 6 the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to be free of compelled self-incrimination; 7 and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel,8 to a speedy9 and public10 trial, to confrontation of opposing witnesses,11 and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.12

The test for determining whether a right extended by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments with respect to federal criminal proceedings is also protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment has been phrased in a variety of ways in the opinions of this Court. The question has been asked whether a right is among those “ 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,' ” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 67 (1932);13 whether *149it is “basic in our system of jurisprudence,” In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948); and whether it is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,” Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 343-344 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 6 (1964); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 403 (1965). The claim before us is that the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment meets these tests. The position of Louisiana, on the other hand, is that the Constitution imposes upon the States no duty to give a jury trial in any criminal case, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or the size of the punishment which may be imposed. Because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which — were they to be tried in a federal court — would come within the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee.14 Since we consider the appeal be*150fore us to be such a case, we hold that the Constitution was violated when appellant’s demand for jury trial was refused.

*151The history of trial by jury in criminal cases has been frequently told.15 It is sufficient for present purposes to say that by the time our Constitution was written, jury trial in criminal cases had been in existence in England for several centuries and carried impressive credentials traced by many to Magna Carta.16 Its preservation and proper operation as a protection against arbitrary rule were among the major objectives of the revolutionary settlement which was expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1689. In the 18th century Blackstone could write:

“Our law has therefore wisely placed this strong and two-fold barrier, of a presentment and a trial by jury, between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown. It was necessary, for preserving the admirable balance of our constitution, to vest the executive power of the laws in the prince: and yet this power might be dangerous and destructive to that very constitution, if exerted without check or control, by justices of oyer and terminer occasionally named by the crown; who might then, as in France or Turkey, imprison, dispatch, or exile any man that was obnoxious to the government, by an instant declaration that such is their will and pleasure. But the founders of the English law have, with excellent forecast, contrived that . . . the truth of every accusation, whether preferred in the shape of indictment, information, or appeal, should afterwards be confirmed by the unani*152mous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours, indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.” 17

Jury trial came to America with English colonists, and received strong support from them. Royal interference with the jury trial was deeply resented. Among the resolutions adopted by the First Congress of the American Colonies (the Stamp Act Congress) on October 19, 1765 — resolutions deemed by their authors to state “the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists” 18— was the declaration:

“That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.”

The First Continental Congress, in the resolve of October 14, 1774, objected to trials before judges dependent upon the Crown alone for their salaries and to trials in England for alleged crimes committed in the colonies; the Congress therefore declared:

“That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.” 19

The Declaration of Independence stated solemn objections to the King’s making “Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries,” to his “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” and to his “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” The Constitution itself, in Art. Ill, § 2, commanded:

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall *153be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.”

Objections to the Constitution because of the absence of a bill of rights were met by the immediate submission and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Included was the Sixth Amendment which, among other things, provided:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” 20

The constitutions adopted by the original States guaranteed jury trial. Also, the constitution of every State entering the Union thereafter in one form or another protected the right to jury trial in criminal cases.

Even such skeletal history is impressive support for considering the right to jury trial in criminal cases to be fundamental to our system of justice, an importance *154frequently recognized in the opinions of this Court. For example, the Court has said:

“Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege 'as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power.’ ” 21

Jury trial continues to receive strong support. The laws of every State guarantee a right to jury trial in serious criminal cases; no State has dispensed with it; nor are there significant movements underway to do so. Indeed, the three most recent state constitutional revisions, in Maryland, Michigan, and New York, carefully preserved the right of the accused to have the judgment of a jury when tried for a serious crime.22

We are aware of prior cases in this Court in which the prevailing opinion contains statements contrary to our holding today that the right to jury trial in serious criminal cases is a fundamental right and hence must be recognized by the States as part of their obligation to extend due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction. Louisiana relies especially on Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581 (1900); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937); and Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97 (1934). None of these cases, however, dealt with a State which had purported to dispense entirely with a *155jury trial in serious criminal cases. Maxwell held that no provision of the Bill of Rights applied to the States— a position long since repudiated — and that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent a State from trying a defendant for a noncapital offense with fewer than 12 men on the jury. It did not deal with a case in which no jury at all had been provided. In neither Palko nor Snyder was jury trial actually at issue, although both cases contain important dicta asserting that the right to jury trial is not essential to ordered liberty and may be dispensed with by the States regardless of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. These observations, though weighty and respectable, are nevertheless dicta, unsupported by holdings in this Court that a State may refuse a defendant’s demand for a jury trial when he is charged with a serious crime. Perhaps because the right to jury trial was not directly at stake, the Court’s remarks about the jury in Palko and Snyder took no note of past or current developments regarding jury trials, did not consider its purposes and functions, attempted no inquiry into how well it was performing its job, and did not discuss possible distinctions between civil and criminal cases. In Malloy v. Hogan, supra, the Court rejected Palko’s discussion of the self-incrimination clause. Respectfully, we reject the prior dicta regarding jury trial in criminal cases.

The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government.23 *156Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power — a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence. The deep commitment of the Nation to the right of jury trial in serious criminal cases as a defense against arbitrary law enforcement qualifies for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and must therefore be respected by the States.

Of course jury trial has “its weaknesses and the potential for misuse,” Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, 35 (1965). We are aware of the long debate, especially in this century, among those who write about the admin*157istration of justice, as to the wisdom of permitting untrained laymen to determine the facts in civil and criminal proceedings.24 Although the debate has been intense, with powerful voices on either side, most of the controversy has centered on the jury in civil cases. Indeed, some of the severest critics of civil juries acknowledge that the arguments for criminal juries are much stronger.25 In addition, at the heart of the dispute have been express or implicit assertions that juries are incapable of adequately understanding evidence or determining issues of fact, and that they are unpredictable, quixotic, and little better than a roll of dice. Yet, the most recent and exhaustive study of the jury in criminal cases concluded that juries do understand the evidence and come to sound conclusions in most of the cases presented to them and that when juries differ with the result at which the judge would have arrived, it is usually because they are serving some of the very purposes for which they were created and for which they are now employed.26

The State of Louisiana urges that holding that the Fourteenth Amendment assures a right to jury trial will cast doubt on the integrity of every trial conducted without a jury. Plainly, this is not the import of our holding. Our conclusion is that in the American States, as in the federal judicial system, a general grant of jury trial for *158serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants. We would not assert, however, that every criminal trial — or any particular trial — held before a judge alone is unfair or that a defendant may never be as fairly treated by a judge as he would be by a jury. Thus we hold no constitutional doubts about the practices, common in both federal and state courts, of accepting waivers of jury trial27 and prosecuting petty crimes without extending a right to jury trial.28 However, the fact is that in most places more trials for serious crimes are to juries than to a court alone; a great many defendants prefer the judgment of a jury to that of a court.29 Even where defendants are satisfied with bench trials, the right to a jury trial very likely serves its intended purpose of making judicial or prosecutorial unfairness less likely.30

*159II.

Louisiana’s final contention is that even if it must grant jury trials in serious criminal cases, the conviction before us is valid and constitutional because here the petitioner was tried for simple battery and was sentenced to only 60 days in the parish prison. We are not persuaded. It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision31 and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States. Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses, Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966). But the penalty authorized for a particular crime is of major relevance in determining whether it is serious or not and may in itself, if severe enough, subject the trial to the mandates of the Sixth Amendment. District of Columbia v. *160 Clawans, 300 U. S. 617 (1937). The penalty authorized by the law of the locality may be taken “as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments,” 300 U. S., at 628, of the crime in question. In Clawans the defendant was jailed for 60 days, but it was the 90-day authorized punishment on which the Court focused in determining that the offense was not one for which the Constitution assured trial by jury. In the case before us the Legislature of Louisiana has made simple battery a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The question, then, is whether a crime carrying such a penalty is an offense which Louisiana may insist on trying without a jury.

We think not. So-called petty offenses were tried without juries both in England and in the Colonies and have always been held to be exempt from the otherwise comprehensive language of the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial provisions. There is no substantial evidence that the Framers intended to depart from this established common-law practice, and the possible consequences to defendants from convictions for petty offenses have been thought insufficient to outweigh the benefits to efficient law enforcement and simplified judicial administration resulting from the availability of speedy and inexpensive non jury adjudications. These same considerations compel the same result under the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course the boundaries of the petty offense category have always been ill-defined, if not ambulatory. In the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, the definitional task necessarily falls on the courts, which must either pass upon the validity of legislative attempts to identify those petty offenses which are exempt from jury trial or, where the legislature has not addressed itself to the problem, themselves face the question in the first instance. In either case it is necessary to draw a line in the spectrum of crime, separating petty from serious *161infractions. This process, although essential, cannot be wholly satisfactory, for it requires attaching different consequences to events which, when they lie near the line, actually differ very little.

In determining whether the length of the authorized prison term or the seriousness of other punishment is enough in itself to require a jury trial, we are counseled by District of Columbia v. Clawans, supra, to refer to objective criteria, chiefly the existing laws and practices in the Nation. In the federal system, petty offenses are defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a $500 fine.32 In 49 of the 50 States crimes subject to trial without a jury, which occasionally include simple battery, are punishable by no more than one year in jail.33 Moreover, in the late 18th century in America crimes triable without a jury were for the most part punishable by no more than a six-month prison term, although there appear to have been exceptions to this rule.34 We need not, however, settle in this case the exact location of the line between petty offenses and serious crimes. It is sufficient for our purposes to hold *162that a crime punishable by two years in prison is, based on past and contemporary standards in this country, a serious crime and not a petty offense.35 Consequently, appellant was entitled to a jury trial and it was error to deny it.

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Fortas, see post, p. 211.]

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

concurring.

The Court today holds that the right to trial by jury guaranteed defendants in criminal cases in federal courts by Art. Ill of the United States Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment is also guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants tried in state courts. With *163this holding I agree for reasons given by the Court. I also agree because of reasons given in my dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 68. In that dissent, at 90, I took the position, contrary to the holding in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, that the Fourteenth Amendment made all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. This Court in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 323, decided in 1937, although saying “[tjhere is no such general rule,” went on to add that the Fourteenth Amendment may make it unlawful for a State to abridge by its statutes the

“freedom of speech which the First Amendment safeguards against encroachment by the Congress... or the like freedom of the press ... or the free exercise of religion ... or the right of peaceable assembly ... or the right of one accused of crime to the benefit of counsel .... In these and other situations immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states.” Id., at 324-325.

And the Palko opinion went on to explain, 302 U. S., at 326, that certain Bill of Rights’ provisions were made applicable to the States by bringing them “within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption.” Thus Twining v. New Jersey, supra, refused to hold that any one of the Bill of Rights’ provisions was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, but Palko, which must be read as overruling Twining on this point, concluded that the Bill of Rights Amendments that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” are “absorbed” by the. Fourteenth as protections against *164state invasion. In this situation I said in Adamson v. California, 332 U. S., at 89, that, while “I would ... extend to all the people of the nation the complete protection of the Bill of Rights,” that “[i]f the choice must be between the selective process of the Palko decision applying some of the Bill of Rights to the States, or the Twining rule applying none of them, I would choose the Palko selective process.” See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335. And I am very happy to support this selective process through which our Court has since the Adamson case held most of the specific Bill of Rights’ protections applicable to the States to the same extent they are applicable to the Federal Government. Among these are the right to trial by jury decided today, the right against compelled self-incrimination, the right to counsel, the right to compulsory process for witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

All of these holdings making Bill of Rights’ provisions applicable as such to the States mark, of course, a departure from the Twining doctrine holding that none of those provisions were enforceable as such against the States. The dissent in this case, however, makes a spirited and forceful defense of that now discredited doctrine. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to repeat the historical and logical reasons for my challenge to the Twining holding contained in my Adamson dissent and Appendix to it. What I wrote there in 1947 was the product of years of study and research. My appraisal of the legislative history followed 10 years of legislative experience as a Senator of the United States, not a bad way, I suspect, to learn the value of what is said in legislative debates, committee discussions, committee reports, and various other steps taken in the course of passage of bills, resolutions, *165and proposed constitutional amendments. My Brother Harlan's objections to my Adamson dissent history, like that of most of the objectors, relies most heavily on a criticism written by Professor Charles Fairman and published in the Stanford Law Review. 2 Stan. L. Rev. 5 (1949). I have read and studied this article extensively, including the historical references, but am compelled to add that in my view it has completely failed to refute the inferences and arguments that I suggested in my Adamson dissent. Professor Fairman's “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means. The historical appendix to my Adamson dissent leaves no doubt in my mind that both its sponsors and those who opposed it believed the Fourteenth Amendment made the first eight Amendments of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) applicable to the States.

In addition to the adoption of Professor Fairman’s “history,” the dissent states that “the great words of the four clauses of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment would have been an exceedingly peculiar way to say that ‘The rights heretofore guaranteed against federal intrusion by the first eight Amendments are henceforth guaranteed against state intrusion as *166well.’ ” Dissenting opinion, n. 9. In response to this I can say only that the words “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States.1 What more precious “privilege” of American citizenship could there be than that privilege to claim the protections of our great Bill of Rights? I suggest that any reading of “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” which excludes the Bill of Rights’ safeguards renders the words of this section of the Fourteenth Amendment meaningless. Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, certainly read the words this way. Although I have cited his speech at length in my Adamson dissent appendix, I believe it would be worthwhile to reproduce a part of it here.

“Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution [the Senator had just read from the old opinion of Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230) (E. D. Pa. 1825)]. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — ■ for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right ap*167pertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

“Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . .

“. . . The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong-., 1st Sess., 2765-2766 (1866).

From this I conclude, contrary to my Brother Hablan, that if anything, it is “exceedingly peculiar” to read the Fourteenth Amendment differently from the way I do.

While I do not wish at this time to discuss at length my disagreement with Brother Harlan’s forthright and frank restatement of the now discredited Twining doc*168trine,2 I do want to point out what appears to me to be the basic difference between us. His view, as was indeed the view of Twining, is that “due process is an evolving concept” and therefore that it entails a “gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion” to ascertain those “immutable principles ... of free government which no member of the Union may disregard.” Thus the Due Process Clause is treated as prescribing no specific and clearly ascertainable constitutional command that judges must obey in interpreting the Constitution, but rather as leaving judges free to decide at any particular time whether a particular rule or judicial formulation embodies an “immutable principle] of free government” or is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” or whether certain conduct “shocks the judge’s conscience” or runs counter to some other similar, undefined and undefinable standard. Thus due process, according to my Brother Hablan, is to be a phrase with no permanent meaning, but one which is found to shift from time to time in accordance with judges’ predilections and understandings of what is best for the country. If due process means this, the Fourteenth Amendment, in my opinion, might as well have been written that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property except by laws that the judges of the United States Supreme Court shall find to be consistent with the immutable principles of free government.” It is impossible for me to believe that such unconfined power is given to judges in our Constitution that is a written one in order to limit governmental power.

Another tenet of the Twining doctrine as restated by my Brother Harlan is that “due process of law requires only fundamental fairness.” But the “fundamental *169fairness” test is one on a par with that of shocking the conscience of the Court. Each of such tests depends entirely on the particular judge’s idea of ethics and morals instead of requiring him to depend on the boundaries fixed by the written words of the Constitution. Nothing in the history of the phrase “due process of law” suggests that constitutional controls are to depend on any particular judge’s sense of values. The origin of the Due Process Clause is Chapter 39 of Magna Carta which declares that “No free man shall be taken, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.” 3 (Emphasis added.) As early as 1354 the words “due process of law” were used in an English statute interpreting Magna Carta,4 and by the end of the 14th century “due process of law” and “law of the land” were interchangeable. Thus the origin of this clause was an attempt by those who wrote Magna Carta to do away with the so-called trials of that period where people were liable to sudden arrest and summary conviction in courts and by judicial commissions with no sure and definite procedural protections and under laws that might have been improvised to try their particular cases. Chapter 39 of Magna Carta was a guarantee that the government would take neither life, liberty, nor property without a trial in accord with the law of the land that already existed at the time the alleged offense was committed. This means that the Due Process Clause gives all Americans, whoever they are and wherever they happen to be, the right to be tried by independent and unprejudiced courts using established procedures and applying valid pre-existing laws. There is not one word of legal history that justifies making the *170term “due process of law” mean a guarantee of a trial free from laws and conduct which the courts deem at the time to be “arbitrary,” “unreasonable,” “unfair,” or “contrary to civilized standards.” The due process of law standard for a trial is one in accordance with the Bill of Rights and laws passed pursuant to constitutional power, guaranteeing to all alike a trial under the general law of the land.

Finally I want to add that I am not bothered by the argument that applying the Bill of Rights to the States, “according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment,” 5 interferes with our concept of federalism in that it may prevent States from trying novel social and economic experiments. I have never believed that under the guise of federalism the States should be able to experiment with the protections afforded our citizens through the Bill of Rights. As Justice Goldberg said so wisely in his concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400:

“to deny to the States the power to impair a fundamental constitutional right is not to increase federal power, but, rather, to limit the power of both federal and state governments in favor of safeguarding the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual. In my view this promotes rather than undermines the basic policy of avoiding excess concentration of power in government, federal or state, which underlies our concepts of federalism.” 380 U.S., at 414.

It seems to me totally inconsistent to advocate, on the one hand, the power of this Court to strike down any state law or practice which it finds “unreasonable” or “unfair” and, on the other hand, urge that the States be *171given maximum power to develop their own laws and procedures. Yet the due process approach of my Brothers Harlan and Fortas (see other concurring opinion, post, p. 211) does just that since in effect it restricts the States to practices which a majority of this Court is willing to approve on a case-by-case basis. No one is more concerned than I that the States be allowed to use the full scope of their powers as their citizens see fit. And that is why I have continually fought against the expansion of this Court’s authority over the States through the use of a broad, general interpretation of due process that permits judges to strike down state laws they do not like.

In closing I want to emphasize that I believe as strongly as ever that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. I have been willing to support the selective incorporation doctrine, however, as an alternative, although perhaps less historically supportable than complete incorporation. The selective incorporation process, if used properly, does limit the Supreme Court in the Fourteenth Amendment field to specific Bill of Rights’ protections only and keeps judges from roaming at will in their own notions of what policies outside the Bill of Rights are desirable and what are not. And, most importantly for me, the selective incorporation process has the virtue of having already worked to make most of the Bill of Rights’ protections applicable to the States.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,

dissenting.

Every American jurisdiction provides for trial by jury in criminal cases. The question before us is not whether jury trial is an ancient institution, which it is; nor whether it plays a significant role in the administration *172of criminal justice, which it does; nor whether it will endure, which it shall. The question in this case is whether the State of Louisiana, which provides trial by jury for all felonies, is prohibited by the Constitution from trying charges of simple battery to the court alone; In my view, the answer to that question, mandated alike by our constitutional history and by the longer history of trial by jury, is clearly “no.”

The States have always borne primary responsibility for operating the machinery of criminal justice within their borders, and adapting it to their particular circumstances. In exercising this responsibility, each State is compelled to conform its procedures to the requirements of the Federal Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that those procedures be fundamentally fair in all respects. It does not, in my view, impose or encourage nationwide uniformity for its own sake; it does not command adherence to forms that happen to be old; and it does not impose on the States the rules that may be in force in the federal courts except where such rules are also found to be essential to basic fairness.

The Court’s approach to this case is an uneasy and illogical compromise among the views of various Justices on how the Due Process Clause should be interpreted. The Court does not say that those who framed the Fourteenth Amendment intended to make the Sixth Amendment applicable to the States. And the Court concedes that it finds nothing unfair about the procedure by which the present appellant was tried. Nevertheless, the Court reverses his conviction: it holds, dor some reason not apparent to me, that the Due Process Clause incorporates the particular clause of the Sixth Amendment that requires trial by jury in federal criminal cases — including, as I read its opinion, the sometimes trivial accompanying baggage of judicial interpretation in federal contexts. *173I have raised my voice many times before against the Court’s continuing undiscriminating insistence upon fastening on the States federal notions of criminal justice,1 and I must do so again in this instance. With all respect, the Court’s approach and its reading of history are altogether topsy-turvy.

I.

I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States.2 They were wont to believe rather that the security of liberty in America rested primarily upon the dispersion of governmental power across a federal system.3 The Bill of Rights was considered unnecessary by some4 but insisted upon by others in order to curb the possibility of abuse of power by the strong central government they were creating.5

The Civil War Amendments dramatically altered the relation of the Federal Government to the States. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes! *174highly significant restrictions on state action. But the restrictions are couched in very broad and general terms: citizenship; privileges and immunities; due process of law; equal protection of the laws. Consequently, for 100 years this Court has been engaged in the difficult process Professor Jaffe has well called “the search for intermediate premises.”6 The question has been, Where does the Court properly look to find the specific rules that define and give content to such terms as “life, liberty, or property” and “due process of law”?

A few members of the Court have taken the position that the intention of those who drafted the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was simply, and exclusively, to make the provisions of the first eight Amendments applicable to state action.7 This view has never been accepted by this Court. In my view, often expressed elsewhere,8 the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant neither to incorporate, nor to be limited to, the specific guarantees of the first eight Amendments. The overwhelming historical evidence marshalled by Professor Fairman demonstrates, to me conclusively, that the Congressmen and state legislators who wrote, debated, and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not think they were “incorporating” the Bill of Rights9 and *175the very breadth and generality of the Amendment’s provisions suggest that its authors did not suppose that the Nation would always be limited to mid-19th century conceptions of “liberty” and “due process of law” but that the increasing experience and evolving conscience of the American people would add new “intermediate premises.” In short, neither history, nor sense, supports using the Fourteenth Amendment to put the States in a *176constitutional straitjacket with respect to their own development in the administration of criminal or civil law.

Although I therefore fundamentally disagree with the total incorporation view of the Fourteenth Amendment, it seems to me that such a position does at least have the virtue, lacking in the Court’s selective incorporation approach, of internal consistency: we look to the Bill of Rights, word for word, clause for clause, precedent for precedent because, it is said, the men who wrote the Amendment wanted it that way. For those who do not accept this “history,” a different source of “intermediate premises” must be found. The Bill of Rights is not necessarily irrelevant to the search for guidance in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, but the reason for and the nature of its relevance must be articulated.

Apart from the approach taken by the absolute incor-porationists, I can see only one method of analysis that has any internal logic. That is to start with the words “liberty” and “due process of law” and attempt to define them in a way that accords with American traditions and our system of government. This approach, involving a much more discriminating process of adjudication than does “incorporation,” is, albeit difficult, the one that was followed throughout the 19th and most of the present century. It entails a “gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion,” 10 seeking, with due recognition of constitutional tolerance for state experimentation and disparity, to ascertain those “immutable principles ... of free government which no member of the Union may disregard.” 11 Due process was not restricted to rules fixed in the past, for that “would be to deny every quality *177of the law but its age, and to render it incapable of progress or improvement.” 12 Nor did it impose nationwide uniformity in details, for

“[t]he Fourteenth Amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two States separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such right. Each State prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding.” 13

Through this gradual process, this Court sought to define “liberty” by isolating freedoms that Americans of the past and of the present considered more important than any suggested countervailing public objective. The Court also, by interpretation of the phrase “due process of law,” enforced the Constitution’s guarantee that no State may imprison an individual except by fair and impartial procedures.

The relationship of the Bill of Rights to this “gradual process” seems to me to be twofold. In the first place it has long been clear that the Due Process Clause imposes some restrictions on state action that parallel Bill of Rights restrictions on federal action. Second, and more important than this accidental overlap, is the fact that the Bill of Rights is evidence, at various points, of the content Americans find in the term “liberty” and of American standards of fundamental fairness.

An example, both of the phenomenon of parallelism and the use of the first eight Amendments as evidence of a historic commitment, is found in the partial definition *178of “liberty” offered by Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652:

“The general principle of free speech . . . must be taken to-be included in the Fourteenth Amendment, in view of the scope that has been given to the word ‘liberty’ as there used, although perhaps it may be accepted with a somewhat larger latitude of interpretation than is allowed to Congress by the sweeping language that governs or ought to govern the laws of the United States.” Id., at 672.

As another example, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the Court in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27-28, recognized that

“[t]he security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police — which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment — is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in ‘the concept of ordered liberty’ and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause.”

The Court has also found among the procedural requirements of “due process of law” certain rules paralleling requirements of the first eight Amendments. For example, in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, the Court ruled that a State could not deny counsel to an accused in a capital case:

“The fact that the right involved is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those ‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions’ ... is obviously one of those compelling considerations which must prevail in determining whether it is embraced within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although it be specifically dealt with in another part of the federal Constitution.” Id., at 67. (Emphasis added.)

*179Later, the right to counsel was extended to all felony-cases.14 The Court has also ruled, for example, that “due process” means a speedy process, so that liberty will not be long restricted prior to an adjudication, and evidence of fact will not become stale;15 that in a system committed to the resolution of issues of fact by adversary proceedings the right to confront opposing witnesses must be guaranteed; 16 and that if issues of fact are tried to a jury, fairness demands a jury impartially selected.17 That these requirements are fundamental to procedural fairness hardly needs redemonstration.

In all of these instances, the right guaranteed against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment was one that had also been guaranteed against the Federal Government by one of the first eight Amendments. The logically critical thing, however, was not that the rights had been found in the Bill of Rights, but that they were deemed, in the context of American legal history, to be fundamental. This was perhaps best explained by Mr. Justice Cardozo, speaking for a Court that included Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Brandéis and Stone, in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319:

“If the Fourteenth Amendment has absorbed them, the process of absorption has had its source in the belief that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Id., at 326.

Referring to Powell v. Alabama, supra, Mr. Justice Cardozo continued:

“The decision did not turn upon the fact that the benefit of counsel would have been guaranteed to *180the defendants by the provisions of the Sixth Amendment if they had been prosecuted in a federal court. The decision turned upon the fact that in the particular situation laid before us in the evidence the benefit of counsel was essential to the substance of a hearing.” Id., at 327.

Mr. Justice Cardozo then went on to explain that the Fourteenth Amendment did not impose on each State every rule of procedure that some other State, or the federal courts, thought desirable, but only those rules critical to liberty:

“The line of division may seem to be wavering and broken if there is a hasty catalogue of the cases on the one side and the other. Reflection and analysis will induce a different view. There emerges the perception of a rationalizing principle which gives to discrete instances a proper order and coherence. The right to trial by jury and the immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment may have value and importance. Even so, they are not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. To abolish them is not to violate a ‘principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.' . . . Few would be so narrow or provincial as to maintain that a fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible without them.” Id., at 325. (Emphasis added.)

Today’s Court still remains unwilling to accept the total incorporationists’ view of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment. This, if accepted, would afford a cogent reason for applying the Sixth Amendment to the States. The Court is also, apparently, unwilling to face the task of determining whether denial of trial by jury in the situation before us, or in other situations, is fun*181damentally unfair. Consequently, the Court has compromised on the ease of the incorporationist position, without its internal logic. It has simply assumed that the question before us is whether the Jury Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment should be incorporated into the Fourteenth, jot-for-jot and case-for-case, or ignored. Then the Court merely declares that the clause in question is “in” rather than “out.” 18

The Court has justified neither its starting place nor its conclusion. If the problem is to discover and articulate the rules of fundamental fairness in criminal proceedings, there is no reason to assume that the whole body of rules developed in this Court constituting Sixth Amendment jury trial must be regarded as a unit. The requirement of trial by jury in federal criminal cases has given rise to numerous subsidiary questions respecting the exact scope and content of the right. It surely cannot be that every answer the Court has given, or will give, to such a question is attributable to the Founders;, or even that every rule announced carries equal conviction of this Court; still less can it be that every such subprinciple is equally fundamental to ordered liberty.

Examples abound. I should suppose it obviously fundamental to fairness that a “jury” means an “impartial *182jury.” 19 I should think it equally obvious that the rule, imposed long ago in the federal courts, that “jury” means “jury of exactly twelve,” 20 is not fundamental to anything: there is no significance except to mystics in the number 12. Again, trial by jury has been held to require a unanimous verdict of jurors in the federal courts,21 although unanimity has not been found essential to liberty in Britain, where the requirement has been abandoned.22

One further example is directly relevant here. The co-existence of a requirement of jury trial in federal criminal cases and a historic and universally recognized exception for “petty crimes” has compelled this Court, on occasion, to decide whether a particular crime is petty, or is included within the guarantee.23 Individual cases have been decided without great conviction and without reference to a guiding principle. The Court today holds, for no discernible reason, that if and when the line is drawn its exact location will be a matter of such fundamental importance that it will be uniformly imposed on the States. This Court is compelled to decide such *183obscure borderline questions in the course of administering federal law. This does not mean that its decisions are demonstrably sounder than those that would be reached by state courts and legislatures, let alone that they are of such importance that fairness demands their imposition throughout the Nation.

Even if I could agree that the question before us is whether Sixth Amendment jury trial is totally “in” or totally “out,” I can find in the Court’s opinion no real reasons for concluding that it should be “in.” The basis for differentiating among clauses in the Bill of Rights cannot be that only some clauses are in the Bill of Rights, or that only some are old and much praised, or that only some have played an important role in the development of federal law. These things are true of all. The Court says that some clauses are more “fundamental” than others, but it turns out to be using this word in a sense that would have astonished Mr. Justice Cardozo and which, in addition, is of no help. The word does not mean “analytically critical to procedural fairness” for no real analysis of the role of the jury in making procedures fair is even attempted. Instead, the word turns out to mean “old,” “much praised,” and “found in the Bill of Rights.” The definition of “fundamental” thus turns out to be circular.

II.

Since, as I see it, the Court has not even come to grips with the issues in this case, it is necessary to start from the beginning. When a criminal defendant contends that his state conviction lacked “due process of law,” the question before this Court, in my view, is whether he was denied any element of fundamental procedural fairness. Believing, as I do, that due process is an evolving concept and that old principles are subject to re-evaluation in light of later experience, I think it appropriate to deal on its merits with the question whether Louisiana denied *184appellant due process of law when it tried him for simple assault without a jury.

The obvious starting place is the fact that this Court has, in the past, held that trial by jury is not a requisite of criminal due process. In the leading case, Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, Mr. Justice Peckham wrote as follows for the Court:24

“Trial by jury has never been affirmed to be a necessary requisite of due process of law. . . .

. . The right to be proceeded against only by indictment, and the right to a trial by twelve jurors, are of the same nature, and are subject to the same judgment, and the people in the several States have the same right to provide by their organic law for the change of both or either. . . . [T]he State has full control over the procedure in its courts, both in civil and criminal cases, subject only to the qualification that such procedure must not work a denial of fundamental rights or conflict with specific and applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution. The legislation in question is not, in our opinion, open to either of these objections.” Id., at 603-605.

*185In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, the question was whether the Territory of Hawaii could continue its pre-annexation procedure of permitting conviction by non-unanimous juries. The Congressional Resolution of Annexation had provided that municipal legislation of Hawaii that was not contrary to the United States Constitution could remain in force. The Court interpreted the resolution to mean only that those requirements of the Constitution that were “fundamental” would be binding in the Territory. After concluding that a municipal statute allowing a conviction of treason on circumstantial evidence would violate a “fundamental” guarantee of the Constitution, the Court continued:

“We would even go farther, and say that most, if not all, the privileges and immunities contained in the bill of rights of the Constitution were intended to apply from the moment of annexation; but we place our decision of this case upon the ground that the two rights alleged to be violated in this case [Sixth Amendment jury trial and grand jury indictment] are not fundamental in their nature, but concern merely a method of procedure which sixty years of practice had shown to be suited to the conditions of the islands, and well calculated to conserve the rights of their citizens to their lives, their property and their well-being.” Id., at 217-218.

Numerous other cases in this Court have assumed that jury trial is not fundamental to ordered liberty.25

Although it is of course open to this Court to reexamine these decisions, I can see no reason why they *186should now be overturned. It can hardly be said that time has altered the question, or brought significant new evidence to bear upon it. The virtues and defects of the jury system have been hotly debated for a long time,26 and are hotly debated today, without significant change in the lines of argument.27

The argument that jury trial is not a requisite of due process is quite simple. The central proposition of Palko, su-pra, a proposition to which I would adhere, is that “due process of law” requires only that criminal trials be fundamentally fair. As stated above, apart from the theory that it was historically intended as a mere shorthand for the Bill of Rights, I do not see what else “due process of law” can intelligibly be thought to mean. If due process of law requires only fundamental *187fairness,28 then the inquiry in each case must be whether a state trial process was a fair one. The Court has held, properly I think, that in an adversary process it is a requisite of fairness, for which there is no adequate substitute, that a criminal defendant be afforded a right to counsel and to cross-examine opposing witnesses. But it simply has not been demonstrated, nor, I think, can it be demonstrated, that trial by jury is the only fair means of resolving issues of fact.

The jury is of course not without virtues. It affords ordinary citizens a valuable opportunity to participate in a process of government, an experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law.29 It eases the burden on judges by enabling them to share a part of their sometimes awesome responsibility.30 A jury may, at times, afford a higher justice by refusing to enforce harsh laws (although it necessarily does so haphazardly, raising the questions whether arbitrary enforcement of harsh laws is better than total enforcement, and whether the jury system is to be defended on the ground that jurors sometimes disobey their oaths).31 And the jury may, or may *188not, contribute desirably to the willingness of the general public to accept criminal judgments as just.32

It can hardly be gainsaid, however, that the principal original virtue of the jury trial — the limitations a jury imposes on a tyrannous judiciary — has largely disappeared. We no longer live in a medieval or colonial society. Judges enforce laws enacted by democratic decision, not by regal fiat. They are elected by the people or appointed by the people’s elected officials, and are responsible not to a distant monarch alone but to reviewing courts, including this one.33

The jury system can also be said to have some inherent defects, which are multiplied by the emergence of the criminal law from the relative simplicity that existed when the jury system was devised.34 It is a cumbersome process, not only imposing great cost in time and money on both the State and the jurors themselves,35 but also contributing to delay in the machinery of justice.36 Untrained jurors are presumably less adept at reaching accurate conclusions of fact than judges, *189particularly if the issues are many or complex.37 And it is argued by some that trial by jury, far from increasing public respect for law, impairs it: the average man, it is said, reacts favorably neither to the notion that matters he knows to be complex are being decided by other average men,38 nor to the way the jury system distorts the process of adjudication.39

That trial by jury is not the only fair way of adjudicating criminal guilt is well attested by the fact that it is not the prevailing way, either in England or in this country. For England, one expert makes the following estimates. Parliament generally provides that new statutory offenses, unless they are of “considerable gravity” shall be tried to judges; consequently, summary offenses now outnumber offenses for which jury trial is afforded by more than six to one. Then, within the latter category, 84% of all cases are in fact tried to the court. Over all, “the ratio of defendants actually tried by jury becomes in seme years little more than 1 per cent.” 40

*190In the United States, where it has not been as generally assumed that jury waiver is permissible,41 the statistics are only slightly less revealing. Two experts have estimated that, of all prosecutions for crimes triable to a jury, 75% are settled by guilty plea and 40% of the remainder are tried to the court.42 In one State, Maryland, which has always provided for waiver, the rate of court trial appears in some years to have reached 90%.43 The Court recognizes the force of these statistics in stating,

“We would not assert, however, that every criminal trial — or any particular trial — held before a judge alone is unfair or that a defendant may never be as fairly treated by a judge as he would be by a jury.” Ante, at 158.

I agree. I therefore see no reason why this Court should reverse the conviction of appellant, absent any suggestion that his particular trial was in fact unfair, or compel the State of Louisiana to afford jury trial in an as yet unbounded category of cases that can, without unfairness, be tried to a court.

Indeed, even if I were persuaded that trial by jury is a fundamental right in some criminal cases, I could see nothing fundamental in the rule, not yet formulated by the Court, that places the prosecution of appellant for simple battery within the category of “jury crimes” rather than “petty crimes.” Trial by jury is ancient, *191it is true. Almost equally ancient, however, is the discovery that, because of it,

“the King’s most loving Subjects are much travailed and otherwise encumbered in coming and keeping of the said six Weeks Sessions, to their Costs, Charges, Unquietness.” 44

As a result, through the long course of British and American history, summary procedures have been used in a varying category of lesser crimes as a flexible response to the burden jury trial would otherwise impose.

The use of summary procedures has long been widespread. British procedure in 1776 exempted from the requirement of jury trial

“[violations of the laws relating to liquor, trade and manufacture, labor, smuggling, traffic on the highway, the Sabbath, ‘cheats,’ gambling, swearing, small thefts, assaults, offenses to property, servants and seamen, vagabondage . . . [and] at least a hundred more . . . .”45 (Emphasis added.)

Penalties for such offenses included heavy fines (with imprisonment until they were paid), whippings, and imprisonment at hard labor.46

Nor had the Colonies a cleaner slate, although practices varied greatly from place to place with conditions. In Massachusetts, crimes punishable by whipping (up to 10 strokes), the stocks (up to three hours), the ducking stool, and fines and imprisonment were triable to magistrates.47 The decision of a magistrate could, in theory, *192be appealed to a jury, but a stiff recognizance made exercise of this right quite rare.48 New York was somewhat harsher. For example, “anyone adjudged by two magistrates to be an idle, disorderly or vagrant person might be transported whence he came, and on reappearance be whipped from constable to constable with thirty-one lashes by each.” 49 Anyone committing a criminal offense “under the degree of Grand Larceny” and unable to furnish bail within 48 hours could be summarily tried by three justices.50 With local variations, examples could be multiplied.

The point is not that many offenses that English-speaking communities have, at one time or another, regarded as triable without a jury are more serious, and carry more serious penalties, than the one involved here. The point is rather that until today few people would have thought the exact location of the line mattered very much. There is no obvious reason why a jury trial is a requisite of fundamental fairness when the charge is robbery, and not a requisite of fairness when the same defendant, for the same actions, is charged with assault and petty theft.51 The reason for the historic exception for relatively minor crimes is the obvious one: the burden of jury trial was thought to outweigh its marginal advantages. Exactly why the States should not be allowed to make continuing adjustments, based on the state of *193their criminal dockets and the difficulty of summoning jurors, simply escapes me.

In sum, there is a wide range of views on the desirability of trial by jury, and on the ways to make it most effective when it is used; there is also considerable variation from State to State in local conditions such as the size of the criminal caseload, the ease or difficulty of summoning jurors, and other trial conditions bearing on fairness. We have before us, therefore, an almost perfect example of a situation in which the celebrated dictum of Mr. Justice Brandéis should be invoked. It is, he said,

"one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory . . . .” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 280, 311 (dissenting opinion).

This Court, other courts, and the political process are available to correct any experiments in criminal procedure that prove fundamentally unfair to defendants. That is not what is being done today: instead, and quite without reason, the Court has chosen to impose upon every State one means of trying criminal cases; it is a good means, but it is not the only fair means, and it is not demonstrably better than the alternatives States might devise.

I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

Seven of the so-called “D.C. Nine” bring this joint appeal from convictions arising out of their unconsented entry into the Washington offices of the Dow Chemical Company, and their destruction *80of certain property therein. Appellants,1 along with two other defendants who subsequently entered pleas of nolo contendere,2 were tried before District Judge John H. Pratt and a jury on a three count indictment alleging, as to each defendant, one count of second degree burglary, 22 D.C.Code § 1801(b), and two counts of malicious destruction of property valued in excess of $100, 22 D.C.Code § 403. On February 11, 1970, after a six-day trial, the seven were each convicted of two counts of malicious destruction. The jury acquitted on the burglary charges but convicted on the lesser-included offense of unlawful entry. The sentences imposed are set forth in the margin.3

Appellants urge three grounds for reversal as follows: (1) The trial judge erred in denying defendants’ timely motions to dispense with counsel and represent themselves. (2) The judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury of its right to acquit appellants without regard to the law and the evidence, and refused to permit appellants to argue that issue to the jury. (3) The instructions actually given by the court coerced the jury into delivering a verdict of guilty. On the basis of defendants’ first contention we reverse and remand for new trial. To provide an appropriate mandate governing the new trial, we consider the second and third contentions, and conclude that these cannot be accepted.

I. The Record in District Court

The undisputed evidence showed that on Saturday, March 22, 1969, appellants broke into the locked fourth floor Dow offices at 1030 - 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., threw papers and documents about the office and into the street below, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and defaced the premises by spilling about a bloodlike substance. The prosecution proved its case through Dow employees who testified as to the lack of permission and extent of damage, members of the news media who had been summoned to the scene by the appellants and who witnessed the destruction while recording it photographically, and police officers who arrested appellants on the scene.

Initially, the court appointed separate counsel for each defendant. Following their arraignment on June 20, 1969, all save appellant Robert Begin elected interim joint representation by Philip Hirschkop, Addison Bowman and Caroline Nickerson. Mr. Begin was represented by Edward Bennett Williams. All attorneys were court-appointed.

At the pre-trial conference held on January 29, 1970, in his chambers, Judge Pratt indicated he had received a letter from Mr. Hirschkop to the effect that appellants Jo Ann Malone, Arthur Melville, and Joseph O’Rourke no longer wished to be represented by counsel. On his own behalf, appellant Begin had written the Court requesting that the appointment of Mr. Williams be terminated, and that he be permitted a pro se defense. Judge Pratt deferred a ruling on the pro se motions in order to give the matter further consideration, observing that to waive counsel

is not quite as easy as merely getting up and saying that you want to represent yourself. You’ve got the matter of the waiver being knowing and intelligent, and we are going to take testimony on that; and furthermore, the possibility of prejudice, not only *81to themselves but also to their co-defendants. (Tr. 3)

Later in the conference he indicated how important he felt the lawyer’s role was likely to be in achieving tranquility at trial:

[L]et me emphasize as strongly as I can that the way this case is handled is presumably my responsibility, but the decorum in the courtroom — I’m talking particularly about the defendants themselves — will be affected to a great degree by the advice and example that they get from their own lawyers. (Tr. 14).

The day before, it seems, Judge Pratt had attended a seminar on the problems of disruption encountered in multi-defendant trials, and he was concerned that “there have been rumors that maybe some disruptive tactics are going to be employed.” (Tr. 15, 174). Defense counsel assured him that they knew of no such rumors and that they anticipated no disruptive behavior. In any event, Judge Pratt scheduled a hearing for February 3, 1970, on the four defendants’ requests as a matter preliminary to the trial.

At a “supplementary” conference the next day, January 30, the Judge acceded to Mr. Williams’s request that his associate, William McDaniels, be substituted as Begin’s counsel of record. Mr. Williams’s request stemmed from statements of emphatic, indeed vitriolic, dissatisfaction with Mr. Williams’s representation contained in Begin’s motion for a pro se defense.

At the February 3, 1970, hearing on the pro se motions, the four original movants were joined by appellant Dougherty. For approximately three-quarters of an hour the court heard from the five defendants and from their lawyers. The judge showed particular interest in the defendants’ education, and specifically whether any of the five had had formal legal training. None had, although appellant Begin asserted he had “taken pains to familiarize (himself) with courtroom procedure.” In general, the testimony showed that the five movants were quite articulate and highly educated. It also appeared that all five movants — indeed all defendants save appellant Slaski — were associated with a religious order, either at that time or in the recent past and, in varying degrees, had been active in work among the poor and underprivileged, in this country and in Latin America.

After a brief recess, the court denied defendants’ motions in an oral opinion, set forth in the margin.5 The judge in*82dicated that he was not troubled by defendants’ general educational background, nor, importantly, by their motivation. However, he emphasized their lack of formal legal training, the multidefendant context of the trial, and the seriousness of the charges. The interplay of those factors he felt created too great a risk of disruption of the trial, and risk of jury prejudice against movants and their co-defendants. After the judge delivered his ruling, there was some confused interchange between the court, counsel and several defendants. At Mr. Hirschkop’s request, court was recessed in order that counsel and defendants could determine how to proceed in light of the judge’s ruling.

When court reconvened after lunch, all defendants were present and a panel of prospective jurors sat in the rear of the courtroom. At that time the remaining four defendants, Catherine Melville, Dennis Moloney, Michael Slaski and Bernard Meyer, made oral motions to represent themselves. These new motions were prompted in large part by the judge's earlier emphasis on prejudice to co-defendants with counsel as a ground for denying the original motions. After some discussion between the court and the defendants, out of the presence of the veniremen, the judge, treating the four new motions as timely made, formally denied them for the reasons given in his oral opinion.

Some collateral matters were then disposed of, including a request — denied—• by Mr. Hirschkop that Judge Pratt disqualify himself. When the court began its voir dire examination of prospective jurors, there was some dispute about the judge’s decision to question the jurors himself rather than to follow the procedure of examination by counsel, but appellants do not bring that issue into this appeal. Similarly, appellants do not complain of the presence or absence of certain questions for the prospective jurors, about which there was controversy at the time.

Selection of the jury was reasonably rapid, requiring only a part of the afternoon of Feb. 3 and part of the next morning. As noted, the court conducted the voir dire. Defendants were, however, permitted to exercise their peremptory challenges in propria, persona.

The trial formally began on the afternoon of February 4. Judge Pratt required that motions, objections, and examination of witnesses be made through counsel. He did, however, agree to permit each defendant to make a five minute opening statement and to testify, in narrative form, at reasonable length without a specific time limit. After the prosecution’s opening statement, Mr. Hirschkop made a brief statement on behalf of all defendants. Then five of the defendants — including appellants *83Dougherty, Begin and Arthur Melville— made opening statements.

The prosecution’s case was completed by the end of the next day, February 5. Prior to the opening of the defense case, defendants Catherine Melville and Bernard Meyer entered pleas of nolo contendere to one count of malicious destruction of property; the remaining charges were dismissed; and they are not before us on this appeal.

On Friday, February 6, after an opening statement by Mr. Bowman, appellants O’Rourke and Malone made opening statements on their own behalf, as the other defendants had done prior to the Government’s case. They directed their remarks, as had the others, to an attack on the role of Dow Chemical Company and other unspecified corporations in supporting American military efforts in the Vietnam War. When Sister Malone referred to Vietnam, Judge Pratt interjected: “the war in Vietnam is not an issue in this case.” A disruption ensued. Events happened too quickly for the court reporter to provide a complete record. The court later inserted this description of what happened, Supplement to Transcript, p. 595:

The record being unclear as to what transpired in the courtroom shortly before the Court adjourned Friday, February 6, 1970, the following is a recital of those events.

Defendant Jo Ann Malone, while making her opening statement, referred to the Vietnam War. (T. 594) The Court ruled that “the War in Vietnam is not an issue in this case.” (T. 594) Defendant Arthur Melville rose to object and was ordered by the Court to be seated. Defendant Michael Slaski also objected and when he failed to obey the Court’s order to be seated, the Marshals were ordered to seat him. (T. 595) While this was taking place, two spectators in the rear of the courtroom then stood and shouted to the bench concerning the relevancy of the War in the case on trial. Marshals moved to eject these two persons. The first was removed without inci.dent. While the second was being ejected with some difficulty, a woman member of the DC-Nine Defense Committee seated in the front row in back of the defendants rose and ran to the back of the courtroom to impede the Marshals and assist the two spectators being removed. When the Marshals resisted her, she screamed at them. Defendant Michael Slaski then wrestled free from the Marshals who were attempting to seat him, hurdled the rail and engaged in an altercation with the Marshals at the rear of the courtroom. During these events the jury was ushered from the courtroom. The Court ordered the courtroom cleared and took a recess. It is reported that the fighting involving defendant Slaski ceased after two or three minutes and the Marshals began clearing the courtroom amid shouts of “pigs” and obscenities. Loud shouting occurred during the entire incident. A number of spectators refused to leave the courtroom and had to be ejected forcibly. The Court returned after the courtroom had been cleared and the press, counsel and the defendants had been readmitted. The jury was recalled, admonished to disregard what it had seen, and sent home. The Court then adjourned until Monday, February 9, 1970.

When the trial resumed on Monday, February 9, defendant Slaski was cited for contempt for his role in the disturbances and the judge sternly admonished the spectators and remaining defendants against further outbreaks. Appellants Slaski and Moloney did not make opening statements. After appellant Malone finished her statement, the case for the defense began. It consisted entirely of defendants’ testimony. Appellants Arthur Melville, O’Rourke, Malone and Begin testified. During the testimony there were several further disruptions requiring a brief recess at one point and ejection of a spectator from the court*84room at another.6 The judge confined closing argument to counsel. He instructed the jury on the three counts of each indictment as well as on the lesser-induded offense of unlawful entry under the burglary count. He refused to instruct the jury that it could disregard the law as he gave it to them, and refused to instruct the jury that “moral compulsion” or “choice of the lesser evil” constituted a legal defense.

II. The Right of Pro Se Representation

In defendants’ view, Judge Pratt violated their constitutional and statutory rights when he refused to permit them to represent themselves. They say the right to dispense with counsel is correlative to the guarantee of the right to counsel and is therefore “implicit” in the Sixth Amendment. They rely as well on 28 U.S.C. § 1654 which provides:

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

The Government responds that a defendant’s right to represent himself is not protected by the Sixth Amendment but only exists by virtue of § 1654, and that this is significant (a) because statutory rights are generally subject to the “harmless error” principle, and (b) § 1654 rights can be limited when, in the judge’s view, they would be likely to lead to disruption of the trial or threaten to interfere with effective presentation of the defendant’s case.

A. Absence of Controlling Precedent on Source of Pro Se Right

The Supreme Court has never directly determined whether the Constitution guarantees the pro se right. Appellants rely on Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 242, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942) where the Court observed:

[t]he right to assistance of counsel and the correlative right to dispense with a lawyer’s help are not legal formalisms. They rest on considerations that go to the substance of an accused’s position before the law. . . [T]he Constitution does not force a lawyer upon a defendant. He may waive his Constitutional right to assistance of counsel if he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.

However, Adams’s “correlative right” language was not an essential ingredient of its holding, which was simply that a defendant who has intelligently waived his right to counsel may also waive his right to a jury trial. Moreover, in Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965), holding a defendant’s waiver of right to a jury trial subject to the assent of the prosecution and the trial judge, the Court said that “the ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist on the opposite of that right.” 380 U.S. at 34-35, 85 S.Ct. at 789. It pointed out that

[t]he Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result. Id. at 36, 85 S.Ct. at 790.7

*85There are conflicting indications from the circuits. The Second Circuit in United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1964), recognized constitutional status for the pro se right. In accord with Plattner, see Lowe v. United States, 418 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1048, 90 S.Ct. 1378, 25 L.Ed.2d 660 (1970); United States v. Warner, 428 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 194, 27 L.Ed.2d 191 (1971); United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1971); Hodge v. United States, 414 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1969). But compare Juelich v. United States, 342 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1965); Van Nattan v. United States, 357 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1966).

In our court, Brown v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 264 F.2d 363 (en banc 1959), left the issue unresolved. Reversal was sought because the trial judge failed to instruct a defendant of his right to represent himself when his court-appointed attorney informed the court that defendant was dissatisfied with the attorney’s pessimism about the outcome of the case. There was no opinion for a majority of the court. Judge Miller, joined by Judges Prettyman, Danaher and Bastían, stated that the pro se right is statutory only, and therefore (a) defendant must assert the right in order to be entitled to it and (b) in any event no reversal was required since no prejudice could be discerned.

The opinions of the other five judges are consistent with a view that the Constitution is the basis for the right, although only one expressly discussed its source. Judge Burger, concurring in part, differed with the others voting to affirm because he treated defendant’s expression of “dissatisfaction” as the equivalent of a request for removal of counsel, but held it within the court’s discretion to deny the request so long as it was sufficiently apprised of the cause of the “dissatisfaction.”

The four dissenters joined in an opinion stating that the reasons for the “dissatisfaction” were not made sufficiently clear to the court to permit the exercise of its informed discretion on the matter, and hence the judge should have inquired further into the basis for defendant’s attitude and should have specifically informed defendant of his right to proceed alone. The pro se alternative, they felt, is one of fundamental importance, and a defendant can make an informed decision on how best to conduct his defense only if he is made aware that he is free to dispense with counsel. The principal dissent, however, made no mention of the Constitution. Only Judge Bazelon, in a separate dissent, said the pro se right was grounded in the Constitution.

B. Need for Recognition of Statutory Right — If Timely Asserted, Not Waived, And Accompanied by Waiver of Right to Counsel

The Government says the pro se right is statutory and subject to “extensive qualifications,” discerning in the decisions seven “factors” on the basis of which the pro se right may be partially or entirely denied.8

This case does not require final resolution of the constitutional question. That would be unavoidable had Congress attempted to narrow or qualify the pro se right along the lines advocated by the Government on this appeal. But that is not the case. The right of pro se representation was enacted by our very first Congress. The language declaring the pro se right is not qualified, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The statute was passed in a context of colonial tribunals largely manned by laymen, and of pioneer modes of thought emphasizing the *86virtues of common sense and self-reliance.9 Its constitutional aura is underscored by the proposal the very next day of the Sixth Amendment.10

In sum, whether or not the right of pro se representation has a constitutional foundation it is patently a statutory right, see § 1654; this right was not only conferred by Congress in 1789 but has wide reverberation in organic state law11 and was recognized by Congress as a fundamental right. We conclude that this right must be recognized if it is timely asserted, and accompanied by a valid waiver of counsel, and if it is not itself waived, either expressly, or constructively, as by disruptive behavior during trial.12

The precedents relied on by the Government as subjecting the pro se right to “extensive qualifications” do no more than establish these basic elements : timely assertion; need for intelligent waiver of counsel; and possibility of waiver of the pro se right. A number of eases involved the special circumstance of defendants whose mental capacity was impaired.13 The bulk of *87the cases cited to us involved requests made after commencement of trial,14 and do no more than apply the recognized principle that the fundamental right to conduct the ease pro se is one that must be claimed timely, before the trial begins. Just as a defendant who has unrestricted right to retain counsel of his own choosing must seek permission of the court once his choice has been made, to select a different retained counsel, and is subject to the sound discretion of the court when he seeks to make a change after his trial has commenced, so a defendant must obtain the court’s permission when he seeks to make a change in order to select himself as counsel.

When the pro se right is claimed after trial has begun, the court exercises its discretion. It may weigh the inconvenience threatened by defendant's belated request against the possible prejudice from denial of defendant’s request. In exercising discretion the judge may take into account the circumstances at the time, whether there has been prior disruptive behavior by defendant, whether the trial is in an advanced stage, etc. E. g., Seale v. Hoffman, supra, note 14; United States v. Foster, 9 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y.1949). The right to self-representation, though asserted before trial, can be lost by disruptive behavior during trial, constituting constructive waiver. But that is a far different situation from that presented by the instant case, where appellants unequivocally claimed the right to represent themselves, see Brown v. United States, supra, 105 U.S.App.D.C. at 81, 264 F.2d at 367 (Burger, J.), United States ex rel. Higgins v. Fay, 364 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1966), well in advance of the beginning of trial and selection of the jury, see United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1965); cf. United States v. Thomas, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 308, 450 F.2d 1355 (1971).

C. “Possible” Disruption as a Basis for Denying Pro Se Defense

The Government seeks to sustain the denial of appellants’ pro se motions on a theory of “possible disruption.” A list of five factors is offered15 which, it is said, “taken together” support the judge's finding of risk of disruption.

Given the general likelihood that pro se defendants have only rudimentary acquaintanceship with the rules of evidence and courtroom protocol, a measure of unorthodoxy, confusion and delay is likely, perhaps inevitable, in pro se cases.16 The energy and time toll on the *88trial judge, as fairness calls him to articulate ground rules and reasons that need not be explained to an experienced trial counsel, can be relieved, at least in part, by appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the defendant.17 If defendant refrains from intentionally obstructive tactics, amicus would be available to provide advice on procedure and strategy. The utility of an amicus appointment is dependent on explanation to and cooperation by defendant, and on understanding, too, that he may claim with some merit that his pro se rights include his right to appear before the jury in the status of one defending himself, and that this is defeated if a too conspicuous role is played by an attorney, unless it clearly appears to the jury that he does not have the status of defense counsel.18

On the other hand, a potentially unruly defendant may and should be clearly forewarned that deliberate dilatory or obstructive behavior may operate in effect as a waiver of his pro se rights and, in that event, amicus will be ready to assume exclusive control of the defense.19 The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that even constitutional litigation prerogatives of a defendant are available to give choice in the conduct of a trial, and do not extend so far as to permit subversion of the core concept of a trial. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). The same principle means that obstreperous behavior may constitute waiver of the pro se right.20

Appointment of amicus counsel would not have resolved all the problems pre*89sented by pro se defenses in the multidefendant context involved in this case. Thus, the prospect of repetitious interrogation of witnesses would persist. But the joint trial that the prosecution seeks in the interest of efficiency cannot set aside the fundamental right of pro se representation. The trial judge must proceed by skill and suasion, by obtaining defendants’ cooperation, not by denying their pro se rights.

We need not 'here consider whether or in what circumstances withholding of reasonable cooperation may be held equivalent to unruly action as a waiver of the right of self-representation. In the case before us, defendants and counsel assured the court, on several occasions, of their lack of disruptive intent, e. g., Tr. 23, 24. The judge in his oral opinion noted that his fears of disruption did not stem from concern over defendants’ “motivations.” Furthermore, the record shows how reasonable cooperation was obtained from defendants, by a reasonable accommodation of interests. When defendants expressed concern over their exclusion from bench conferences, Judge Pratt made, and defendants accepted (Tr. 333-335), a suggestion permitting a “representative” defendant to participate in bench conferences as an observer. A similar approach might have obviated any serious problems of repetitious interrogation.21 In the last analysis, however, if the assertion of a pro se right makes a multidefendant trial unmanageable, or unfair to the other defendants, the remedy lies in severance. Rule 14, F.R.Crim.P.

In effect the unqualified right of self representation rests on an implied presumption that the court will be able to achieve reasonable cooperation. The possibility that reasonable cooperation may be withheld, and the right later waived, is not a reason for denying the right of self representation at the start.

D. Lack of Foundation for Government Claims of Prior Disruptive Behavior

The Government argues that in this case there was disruptive behavior on the part of defendants which sustains the judge’s denial of pro se representation. We assume, without deciding, that where there has been experience with the particular defendants that is plainly identifiable as disruptive in character, such as to overturn the premise of reasonable cooperation, and permit a finding of anticipatory breach and waiver, that would be a predicate for denying the pro se right. We do not think any such predicate appears in this case.

We begin by rejecting the Government’s approach of using “disruptive” incidents following the denial of the pro se motions as reasons to support that denial.22 This is like using the fruit of an unreasonable search to provide a cause making the search reasonable. Nearly all of the incidents cited by the Government concerned assertions of the right to self-representation. It would be anomalous to hold that the denial of one’s rights can be justified by reference to the nature of subsequent complaints protesting that denial.

As to defendants’ actions prior to the denial of their pro se requests, these *90were not the kind of “disruptive” actions that warranted denial on that basis alone. We are aware of the occasions prior to the pro se ruling when defendants interrupted the pre-trial hearing without obtaining the court’s prior leave. However, most of the interruptions stemmed from defendants’ confusion over the exclusion of the public from the pre-trial hearing, a matter that had been arranged at the pre-trial conference in which defendants had not participated, and which was subject to reasonably prompt clarification without repetition.

Thus, during Sister Malone’s testimony, in which she inquired of the court the reasons for the exclusion of the public, appellant Dougherty interrupted to observe that he thought the courtroom was large enough to accommodate the people who could be expected to attend. This followed by moments an “interruption” by Mr. O’Rourke to make a request, joined in by Sister Malone, that two of their relatives be permitted to observe the progress of the hearing— a request that the court granted.

None of the incidents can be characterized as “disruptive” in the sense of evincing defendants’ intent to upset or unreasonably delay the hearing. Indeed to some extent the defendants, not trained in courtroom decorum, had reason to suppose their behavior was within proper bounds. At the hearing and during the early trial, Judge Pratt not only took considerable care to explain his ruling on the pro se motions, but also permitted the defendants to participate personally in jury selection. The record also shows that Judge Pratt engaged defendants in colloquies on various matters directly rather than through counsel. We do not disapprove, we rather commend, Judge Pratt’s willingness to handle this case with some flexibility. The Supreme Court has emphasized that one of the most important functions of criminal trials is, within reason, to make plain to defendants and society at large that justice is done in our courts,23 and Judge Pratt’s approach likely had that effect in this case. But the latitude previously granted to appellants must be taken into account in appraising whether their later requests manifest disruptive conduct.24 We cannot agree their pre-ruling behavior can be considered as so “disruptive” as to constitute a constructive, anticipatory waiver of a fundamental right.

E. Application of the Doctrine of Harmless Error

The Government finally contends that, assuming arguendo error in the denial of pro se defense, reversal as inappropriate because no prejudice resulted. We may assume, without deciding, that the harmless error doctrine — either in its ordinary formulation, or the more refined “harmless constitutional error” version25 — applies even in cases involving denial of a fundamental statutory right approximating or equalling the rights expressly stated in the Constitution. But we do not think it applicable to this case.

The principal characteristic of “harmless error” doctrine is its “result-orientation.” Its normal operation is in cases where the challenged error concerns *91a right given the defendant in order to permit his defense to operate at maximum competence26 or to insulate him from the effects of suspect evidence.27 In such cases there is reason to consider whether claimed error is harmless because it plainly did not affect the result adversely to defendant, for then the reason for the right lapses.

Courts have recognized a measure of result-orientation in the right of pro se representation. The Second Circuit, for example, perceives a basis for the pro se right in the need not to force a defendant to accept a lawyer in whom he has little confidence. Without such confidence, lawyer-client communication is likely to be unsatisfactory and “defendant may be better off representing himself,” United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, supra, 348 F.2d at 15.

However, a salient aspect of the pro se right, in our view, is directed to considerations distinct from the objective of achieving what would be the best result in the litigation from a lawyer’s point of view. As the Supreme Court said in Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, supra, 317 U.S. at 279, 63 S.Ct. at 241, the “right to dispense with a lawyer’s help .... rest[s] on considerations that go to the substance of an accused’s position before the law.” It is designed to safeguard the dignity and autonomy of those whose circumstances or activities have thrust them involuntarily into the criminal process. An accused has a fundamental right to confront his accusers and his “country,” to present himself and his position to the jury not merely as a witness or through a “mouthpiece,” but as a man on trial who elects to plead his own cause. He is not obliged to seek what counsel would record as a victory but what he sees as tantamount to condemnation or doubt rather than vindication. A defendant has the moral right to stand alone in his hour of trial. The denial of that right is not to be redeemed through the prior estimate of someone else that the practical position of the defendant will be enhanced through representation by another, or the subsequent conclusion that defendant’s practical position has not been disadvantaged.

In guaranteeing counsel for the accused, the Sixth Amendment conferred a right for the benefit of the accused. As implemented by Congress, this right is not an imperative requirement that may be thrust upon him when in his judgment, as a person without impaired mental capacity, it is against his interest. Even if the defendant will likely lose the case anyway, he has the right — as he suffers whatever consequences there may be — to the knowledge that it was the claim that he put forward that was considered and rejected, and to the knowledge that in our free society, devoted to the ideal of individual worth, he was not deprived of his free will to make his own choice, in his hour of trial, to handle his own case.28

In the case at bar defendants believed they would be vindicated by their peers by presenting their positions without law-trained counsel as intermediary. They may or may not be right about the relative effectiveness of a lawyer’s presentation of their case. Ordinarily repre*92sentation by an attorney has structure and clarity that enables a jury to better understand defendants’ positions. Presentation of a case pro se will often be artless and confusing. Yet the normal disadvantage of confusion may be offset by the enhanced intensity and appearance of greater sincerity of a defendant’s presentation.29

While we cannot apply the doctrine of “harmless error” in case of denial of right of pro se representation on the ground that this would likely have resulted in the same verdict as counseled representation, a different question arises as to whether the overall format of the trial was such, in terms of the latitude given to the defendants, that they in effect had the substance though not the form of pro se representation.

This is a closer question, for as we have noted the judge made a painstaking effort to take some account of defendants’ positions in the courtroom, and indeed gave permission to defendants to make brief opening statements and to testify informally in narrative fashion.

In the last analysis, the judge’s efforts did not suffice to 'dissipate the erroneous denial of pro se representation. The court’s indulgence of defendants undoubtedly appeared as exactly that, a matter of grace — as something “extra” given to them beyond their due rights — which undercuts the objective of preserving defendants’ personal autonomy and responsibility in the courtroom. The format provided by the judge allowed for brief opening statements by defendants not as representing themselves, as they had a right to appear, but as a supplement to the counsel appointed to represent them. The denial of the defendants’ right to make closing statements removed them from the place of responsibility at the climax of the trial— when they would be summing up their positions in a context of a summing up by prosecution counsel. Presentation of closing statements by the defendants was originally promised and then taken away because of their disruptions. But the vast bulk of the incidents cited in the Government’s brief as such disruptions- — 81 out of 89 — were essentially colloquies in which the defendants were asserting their pro se rights. And except for the eruption as to the Vietnam war “issue,” the other incidents were relatively minor in character. But the abiding difficulty remains — that one cannot fairly reason backward, from the conduct of a defendant at a trial where he was denied the right to represent himself, to what his conduct would have been if at the outset the trial judge recognized that right and at the same time clarified the responsibilities of representation.

In finding error because of the denial of the pro se right we are not unmindful of the fact that this trial presented Judge Pratt with difficult problems, and that in many respects his conduct of the trial reflected a commendable approach, a humane and flexible spirit that would have served, if the right of self-representation had been granted, to curb unwelcome consequences of that right.30 *93If it had not been for that threshold error, the trial would have had a different character. In view, however, of both the quality of, and limitations on, the permissions granted to defendants, we cannot say that the procedure followed was the equivalent of according the right of self-representation that was erroneously denied at the outset.

III. The Issue of Jury Nullification

Our reference to the “intensity” factor underlying the pro se right should not be understood as embracing the principle of “nullification” proffered by appellants. They say that the jury has a well-recognized prerogative to disregard the instructions of the court even as to matters of law, and that they accordingly have the legal right that the jury be informed of its power. We turn to this matter in order to define the nature of the new trial permitted by our mandate.

There has evolved in the Anglo-American system an undoubted jury prerogative-in-fact, derived from its power to bring in a general verdict of not guilty in a criminal case, that is not reversible by the court. The power of the courts to punish jurors for corrupt or incorrect verdicts, which persisted after the medieval system of attaint by another jury became obsolete, was repudiated in 1670 when Bushell’s Case, 124 Eng.Rep. 1006 (C.P. 1670) discharged the jurors who had acquitted William Penn of unlawful assembly. Juries in civil cases became subject to the control of ordering a new trial; no comparable control evolved for acquittals in criminal cases.

The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel, on the plea of Andrew Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave law. The values involved drop a notch when the liberty vindicated by the verdict relates to the defendant’s shooting of his wife’s paramour, or purchase during Prohibition of alcoholic beverages.31

Even the notable Dean Pound commented in 1910 on positive aspects of “such jury lawlessness.”32 These observations of history and philosophy are underscored and illuminated, in terms of the current place of the jury in the American system of justice, by the empirical information and critical insights and analyses blended so felicitously in H. Kalven and H. Zeisel, The American Jury.33

*94Reflective opinions upholding the necessity for the jury as a protection against arbitrary action, such as prosecutorial abuse of power, stress fundamental features like the jury “common sense judgment” and assurance of “community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.” 34 Human fraility *95being what it is, a prosecutor disposed by unworthy motives could likely establish some basis in fact for bringing charges against anyone he wants to book, but the jury system operates in fact, (see note 33) so that the jury will not convict when they empathize with the defendant, as when the offense is one they see themselves as likely to commit, or consider generally acceptable or condonable under the mores of the community.

The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected sources — John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges — that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of the court.35

The rulings did not run all one way, but rather precipitated “a number of classic exchanges on the freedom and obligations of the criminal jury.”36 This was, indeed, one of the points of clash between the contending forces staking out the direction of the government of the newly established Republic, a direction resolved in political terms by reforming but sustaining the status of the courts, without radical change.37 As the distrust of judges appointed and removable by the king receded, there came increasing acceptance that under a republic the protection of citizens lay not in recognizing the right of each jury to make its own law, but in following democratic processes for changing the law.

The crucial legal ruling came in United States v. Battiste, 2 Sum. 240, Fed.Cas. No. 14,545 (C.C.D.Mass. 1835). Justice Story’s strong opinion supported the conception that the jury’s function lay in accepting the law given to it by the court and applying that law to the facts. This considered ruling of an influential jurist won increasing acceptance in the nation. The youthful passion for independence accommodated itself to the reality that the former rebels were now in control of their own destiny, that the practical needs of stability and sound growth outweighed the abstraction of centrifugal philosophy, and that the judges in the courts, were not the colonial appointees projecting royalist patronage and influence but were themselves part and parcel of the nation’s intellectual mainstream, subject to the checks of the common law tradition and professional opinion, and capable, in Roscoe Pound’s words, of providing “true judicial justice” standing in contrast with the colonial experience.38

*96The tide was turned by Battiste, but there were cross-currents. At mid-century the country was still influenced by the precepts of Jacksonian democracy, which spurred demands for direct selection of judges by the people through elections, and distrust of the judge-made common law which enhanced the movement for codification reform. But by the end of the century, even the most prominent state landmarks had been toppled ;39 and the Supreme Court settled the matter for the Federal courts in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895) after exhaustive review in both majority and dissenting opinions. The jury’s role was respected as significant and wholesome, but it was not to be given instructions that articulated a right to do whatever it willed. The old rule survives today only as a singular relic.40

The breadth of the continuing prerogative of the jury, however, perseveres, as appears from the rulings permitting inconsistent verdicts. These reflect, in the words of Justice Holmes, an acknowledgment that “the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts,”41 or as Judge Learned Hand said: “We interpret the acquittal as no more than their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.” 42

Since the jury’s prerogative of lenity, again in Learned Hand’s words (supra,, note 34) introduces a “slack into the enforcement of law, tempering its rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions,” it is only just, say appellants, that the jurors be so told. It is unjust to withhold information on the jury power of “nullification,” since conscientious jurors may come, ironically, to abide by their oath as jurors to render verdicts offensive to their individual conscience, to defer to an assumption of necessity that is contrary to reality.

This so-called right of jury nullification is put forward in the name of liberty and democracy, but its explicit avowal risks the ultimate logic of anarchy. This is the concern voiced by Judge Sobeloff in United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1009 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 908, 25 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970):

To encourage individuals to make their own determinations as to which laws they will obey and which they *97will permit themselves as a matter of conscience to disobey is to invite chaos. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable. Toleration of such conduct would not be democratic, as appellants claim, but inevitably anarchic.

The statement that avowal of the jury’s prerogative runs the risk of anarchy, represents, in all likelihood, the habit of thought of philosophy and logic, rather than the prediction of the social scientist. But if the statement contains an element of hyperbole, the existence of risk and danger, of significant magnitude, cannot be gainsaid. In contrast, the advocates of jury “nullification” apparently assume that the articulation of the jury’s power will not extend its use or extent, or will not do so significantly or obnoxiously. Can this assumption fairly be made? We know that a posted limit of 60 m.p.h. produces factual speeds 10 or even 15 miles greater, with an understanding all around that some “tolerance” is acceptable to the authorities, assuming conditions warrant. But can it be supposed that the speeds would stay substantially the same if the speed limit were put: Drive as fast as you think appropriate, without the posted .limit as an anchor, a point of departure ?

Our jury system is a resultant of many vectors, some explicit, and some rooted in tradition, continuity and general understanding without express formulation. A constitution may be meaningful though it is unwritten, as the British have proved for 900 years.

The jury system has worked out reasonably well overall, providing “play in the joints” that imparts flexibility and avoid undue rigidity. An equilibrium has evolved — an often marvelous balance — with the jury acting as a “safety valve” for exceptional cases, without being a wildcat or runaway institution. There is reason to believe that the simultaneous achievement of modest jury equity and avoidance of intolerable caprice depends on formal instructions that do not expressly delineate a jury charter to carve out its own rules of law.43 We have taken due and wry note that those whose writings44 acclaim and invoke Roscoe Pound’s 1910 recognition of the value of the jury as safety valve, omit mention of the fact that in the same article he referred to “the extreme decentralization that allows a local jury or even a local prosecutor to hold up instead of uphold the law of the state” as one of the conditions that “too often result in a legal paralysis of legal administration,” 45 that his writings of that period are expressly concerned with the evils of the “extravagant powers” of juries,46 and that in 1931 he joined the other distin*98guished members of the Wickersham Commission in this comment:47

In a number of jurisdictions juries are made judges of the law in criminal cases, thus inviting them to dispense with the rules of law instead of finding the facts. The juror is made judge of the law not to ascertain what it is, but to judge of its conformity to his personal ideals and ascertain its validity on that basis. . . . It is significant that there is most satisfaction with criminal juries in those jurisdictions which have interfered least with the conception of a trial of the facts unburdened with further responsibility and instructed as to the law and advised as to the facts by the judge.

The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in the way it is told to operate. The jury knows well enough that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated in the formal instructions of the court.48 The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the judge. There is the informal communication from the total ■ culture — • literature (novel, drama, film, and television); current comment (newspapers, magazines and television); conversation; and, of course, history and tradition. The totality of input generally convey adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says. Even indicators that would on their face seem too weak to notice — like the fact that the judge tells the jury it must acquit (in case of reasonable doubt) but never tells the jury in so many words that it must convict- — are a meaningful part of the jury’s total input. Law is a system, and it is also a language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet are part of its life.

When the legal system relegates the information of the jury’s prerogative to an essentially informal input, it is not being duplicitous, chargeable with chicane and intent to deceive. The limitation to informal input is, rather a governor to avoid excess: the prerogative is reserved for the exceptional case, and the judge’s instruction is retained as a generally effective constraint. We “recognize a constraint as obligatory upon us when we require not merely reason to defend our rule departures, but damn good reason.”49 The practicalities of men, machinery and rules point up the danger of articulating discretion to depart from a rule, that the breach will be more often and casually invoked. We cannot gainsay that occasionally jurors uninstructed as to the prerogative may feel themselves compelled to the point of rigidity.50 The danger of the excess rigidity that may now occasionally exist is not as great as the danger of removing the boundaries of constraint provided by the announced rules.

We should also note the inter-relation of the unanimity requirement for petit juries, which was applicable to this trial, and is still the general rule though no longer constitutionally required for state courts.51 This is an additional reason— a material consideration, though neither a necessary nor sufficient condition— to brake the wheels of those who would tell the petit jurors they are to determine the rules of law, either directly or *99by telling them they are free to disregard the judge’s statement of the rules. The democratic principle would not be furthered, as proponents of jury nullification claim, it would be dis-served by investing in a jury that must be unanimous the function not merely of determining facts, hard enough for like-minded resolution, but of determining the rules of law.

Rules of law or justice involve choice of values and ordering of objectives for which unanimity is unlikely in any society, or group representing the society, especially a society as diverse in cultures and interests as ours. To seek unity out of diversity, under the national motto, there must be a procedure for decision by vote of a majority or prescribed plurality — in accordance with democratic philosophy. To assign the role of mini-legislature to the various petit juries, who must hang if not unanimous, exposes criminal law and administration to paralysis, and to a deadlock that betrays rather than furthers the assumptions of viable democracy.

Moreover, to compel a juror involuntarily assigned to jury duty to assume the burdens of mini-legislator or judge, as is implicit in the doctrine of nullification, is to put untoward strains on the jury system. It is one thing for a juror to know that the law condemns, but he has a factual power of lenity. To tell him expressly of a nullification prerogative, however, is to inform him, in effect, that it is he who fashions the rule that condemns. That is an overwhelming responsibility, an extreme burden for the jurors’ psyche. And it is not inappropriate to add that a juror called upon for an involuntary public service is entitled to the protection, when he takes action that he knows is right, but also knows is unpopular, either in the community at large or in his own particular grouping, that he can fairly put it .to friends and neighbors that he was merely following the instructions of the court.

In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury nullification doctrine is a recognition that there are times when logic is not the only or even best guide to sound conduct of government. For machines, one can indulge the person who likes to tinker in pursuit of fine tuning. When men and judicial machinery are involved, one must attend to the many and complex mechanisms and reasons that lead men to change their conduct — when they know they are being studied; when they are told of the consequences of their conduct; and when conduct exercised with restraint as an unwritten exception is expressly presented as a legitimate option.

What makes for health as an occasional medicine would be disastrous as a daily diet. The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury’s prerogative, and approval of its existence as a “necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,” 52 does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. On the contrary, it is pragmatically useful to structure instructions in such wise that the jury must feel strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it must itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience,53 and *100must independently initiate and undertake an act in contravention of the established instructions. This requirement of independent jury conception confines the happening of the lawless jury to the occasional instance that does not violate, and viewed as an exception may even enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law. An explicit instruction to a jury conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny.

Finally, we are aware that the denial of defendants’ request for a nullification instruction will be considered by them to negative some, or perhaps most, of the value of the right of pro se representation which we have recognized. This point could be answered in terms of logic: The right of self-representation is given for reasons recognized by the law, and cannot be a springboard to establish the validity of other advantages or conditions that lie in its tactical wake. Thus, a defendant’s ability to present his demeanor and often even a kind of testimony, without exposure to impeachment or cross-examination, may be a tactical consequence of pro se representation, and even a moving cause of its invocation, but this is not to say it is an objective of the law. But defendants’ position merits a more spacious answer, that lies outside the domain of formal logic. It is this. The jury system provides flexibility for the consideration of interests of justice outside the formal rules of law. This embraces whatever extra the defendant conveys by personal representation, whether through demeanor or sincerity of justification. But it is subject to the overriding consideration that what is tolerable or even desirable as an informal, self-initiated exception, harbors grave dangers to the system if it is opened to expansion and intensification through incorporation in the judge’s instruction.

IV. The Jury Instructions

Finally, defendants assert that one segment of the charge to the jury, set forth in the margin,54 was coercive, *101tantamount to a directed verdict of guilty, and outside the proper scope of a judicial instruction.

For the most part, defendants’ real complaint seems to be that the court stated the law applicable to the case. There is no contention — apart from the jury nullification claim, which we have rejected — that the charge was inaccurate as a statement of the applicable law. If a judge is to instruct the jury on the ultimate facts that are material under the law, he may properly advise the jury of what matters brought forward by defendants are not material under the applicable rule of law — as surely as he may charge that voluntary intoxication is no defense to a charge of second degree murder. Since it is the essence of the judicial function to declare the applicable law, it follows that the mere declaration of the law cannot be held outside the judicial function. This is tautological, but it is often the part of wisdom to be able to recognize which propositions are true tautologies. The jury were not told they must bring in a guilty verdict nor was there the kind of language or conduct, going beyond a declaration of the applicable law, that has in other cases 55 been held coercive, and an imroper departure from the role of the judge.

* -» *

The judgment must be reversed, for the reasons stated in part II of this opinion, and the case remanded for new trial, if the Government be so advised, in accordance with parts III and IV.

So ordered.

BAZELON, Chief Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the Court’s discussion of the statutory right of self-representation in criminal cases. In view of our holding that the statutory right is “unqualified,” our decision need not rest on the asserted constitutional right to proceed pro se. I emphasize, however, that my concurrence reflects no retreat from the position I expressed thirteen years *102ago in Brown v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 84, 264 F.2d 363, 370 (1959) (en banc) (dissenting opinion). I believed then, and I believe today, that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to act on his own behalf in resisting a criminal prosecution.

My disagreement with the Court concerns the issue of jury nullification. As the Court’s opinion clearly acknowledges, there can be no doubt that the jury has “an unreviewable and unreversible power * * * to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge * * Majority opinion at 1132. More important, the Court apparently concedes — although in somewhat grudging terms — that the power of nullification is a “necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,” 1 and that exercise of the power may, in at least some instances, “enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law.” Id. at 1137. We could not withhold that concession without scoffing at the rationale that underlies the right to jury trial in criminal eases,2 and belittling some of the most legendary episodes in our political and jurisprudential history.3

The sticking point, however, is whether or not the jury should be told of its power to nullify the law in a particular case. Here, the trial judge not only denied a requested instruction on nullification, but also barred defense counsel from raising the issue in argument before the jury. The majority affirms that ruling. I see no justification for, and considerable harm in, this deliberate lack of candor.

At trial, the defendants made no effort to deny that they had committed the acts charged. Their defense was designed to persuade the jury that it would be unconscionable to convict them of violating a statute whose general validity and applicability they did not challenge. An instruction on nullification — or at least some argument to the jury on that issue — was, therefore, the linchpin of the defense.

At the outset it is important to recognize that the trial judge was not simply neutral on the question of nullification. His instruction, set out in part in the margin,4 emphatically denied the existence of a “legal defense” based on “sincere religious motives” or a belief that *103action was justified by “some higher law.” That charge was not directly inconsistent with the theory of jury nullification. Nullification is not a “defense” recognized by law, but rather a mechanism that permits a jury, as community conscience,5 to disregard the strict requirements of law where it finds that those requirements cannot justly be applied in a particular case. Yet the impact of the judge’s instruction, whatever his intention, was almost surely to discourage the jury from measuring the defendants’ action against community concepts of blameworthiness.

Thus, we are left with a doctrine that may “enhance the over-all normative effect of the rule of law,” but, at the same time, one that must not only be concealed from the jury, but also effectively condemned in the jury’s presence. Plainly, the justification for this sleight-of-hand lies in a fear that an occasionally noble doctrine will, if acknowledged, often be put to ignoble and abusive purposes — or, to borrow the Court’s phrase, will “run *104the risk of anarchy.” Majority opinion at 1134. A breakdown of the legal order is not a result I would knowingly encourage or enjoy. But the question cannot be resolved, at least at this stage of the argument, by asking if we are for or against anarchy, or if we are willing to tolerate a little less law and order so that we can permit a little more jury nullification. No matter how horrible the effect feared by the Court, the validity of its reasoning depends on the existence of a demonstrable connection between the alleged cause (a jury nullification instruction or argument to the jury on that issue) and that effect. I am unable to see a connection.

To be sure, there are abusive purposes, discussed below, to which the doctrine might be put. The Court assumes that these abuses are most likely to occur if the doctrine is formally described to the jury by argument or instruction. That assumption, it should be clear, does not rest on any proposition of logic. It is nothing more or less than a prediction of how jurors will react to the judge’s instruction or argument by counsel. And since we have no empirical data to measure the validity of the prediction, we must rely on our own rough judgments of its plausibility.

The Court reasons that a jury uninformed of its power to nullify will invoke that power only where it “feel[s] strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it [will] itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience * * Majority opinion at 1136. In other words, the spontaneous and unsolicited act of nullification is thought less likely, on the whole, to reflect bias and a perverse sense of values than the act of nullification carried out by a jury carefully instructed on its power and responsibility-

It seems substantially more plausible to me to assume that the very opposite is true. The juror motivated by prejudice seems to me more likely to make. spontaneous use of the power to nullify, and more likely to disregard the judge’s exposition of the normally controlling legal standards. The conscientious juror, who could make a careful effort to consider the blameworthiness of the defendant’s action in light of prevailing community values, is the one most likely to obey the judge’s admonition that the jury enforce strict principles of law.

Moreover, if it were true that nullification which arises out of ignorance is in some sense more worthy than nullification which arises out of knowledge, the Court would have to go much further. For under the Court’s assumption, the harm does not arise because a jury is told of its power to disregard the law, but because it knows of its power. Logically construed, the Court’s opinion would seem to require the disqualification at voir dire of any prospective juror who admitted to knowledge of the doctrine. By excluding jurors with knowledge of the doctrine the Court could insure that its invocation would be spontaneous. And yet, far from requiring the exclusion of jurors who are aware of the power, the Court takes comfort in the fact that informal communication to the jury “generally convey[s] adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says.” Majority opinion at 1135. One cannot, it seems to me, have the argument both ways. If, as the Court appears to concede, awareness is preferable to ignorance, then I simply do not understand the justification for relying on a haphazard process of informal communication whose effectiveness is likely to depend, to a large extent, on whether or not any of the jurors are so well-educated and astute that they are able to receive the message. If the jury should know of its power to disregard the law, then the power should be explicitly described by instruction of the court or argument of counsel.

My own view rests on the premise that nullification can and should serve an important function in the criminal process. I do not see it as a doctrine that exists only because we lack the power to punish *105jurors who refuse to enforce the law or to re-prosecute a defendant whose acquittal cannot be justified in the strict terms of law. The doctrine permits the jury to bring to bear on the criminal process- a sense of fairness and particularized justice. The drafters of legal rules cannot anticipate and take account of every case where a defendant’s conduct is “unlawful" but not blameworthy, any more than they can draw a bold line to mark the boundary between an accident and negligence. It is the jury — as spokesman for the community’s sense of values — that must explore that subtle and elusive boundary.

Admittedly, the concept of blameworthiness does not often receive explicit recognition in the criminal process. But it comes very close to breaking through the surface in cases where the responsibility defense is raised, see United States v. Brawner, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 1, at 62, 471 F.2d 969, at 1030 (1972) (en banc), (separate opinion); United States v. Bennett, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 364, 368-370, 460 F.2d 872, 876-878 (1972); United States v. Eichberg, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 110, 113, 439 F.2d 620, 623 (1971) (concurring opinion), and it is implicit in every case where criminal sanctions are imposed. More than twenty-five years ago this Court recognized that “[o]ur collective conscience does not allow punishment where it cannot impose blame.” 6 And the Supreme Court, in a well-known opinion by Justice Jackson, has pointed out that

courts of various jurisdictions, and for the purposes of different offenses, have devised working formulae, if not scientific ones, for the instruction of juries around such terms as “felonious intent,” “criminal intent,” “malice aforethought,” “guilty knowledge,” “fraudulent intent,” “wilfulness,’’ “scienter,” to denote guilty knowledge, or “mens rea,” to signify an evil purpose or mental culpability. By use or combination of these various tokens, they have sought to protect those who were not blameworthy in mind from conviction of infamous common-law crimes.' 7

The very essence of the jury’s function is its role as spokesman for the community conscience in determining whether or not blame can be imposed.8

I do not see any reason to assume that jurors will make rampantly abusive use of their power. Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must re-examine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine. Nevertheless, *106some abuse can be anticipated. If a jury refuses to apply strictly the controlling principles of law, it may — in conflict with values shared by the larger community — convict a defendant because of prejudice against him, or acquit a defendant because of sympathy for him and prejudice against his victim. Our fear of unjust conviction is plainly understandable. But it is hard for me to see how a nullification instruction could enhance the likelihood of that result. The instruction would speak in terms of acquittal, not conviction, and it would provide no comfort to a juror determined to convict a defendant in defiance of the law or the facts of the ease. Indeed, unless the jurors ignored the nullification instruction they could not convict on the grounds of prejudice alone. Does the judge’s recitation of the instruction increase the likelihood that the jury will ignore the limitation that lies at its heart ? I hardly think so.

As for the problem of unjust acquittal, it is important to recognize the strong internal check that constrains the jury’s willingness to acquit. Where defendants seem dangerous, juries are unlikely to exercise their nullification power, whether or not an explicit instruction is offered. Of course, that check will not prevent the acquittal of a defendant who may be blameworthy and dangerous except in the jaundiced eyes of a jury motivated by a perverse and sectarian sense of values. But whether a nullification instruction would make such acquittals more common is problematical, if not entirely inconceivable. In any case, the real problem in this situation is not the nullification doctrine, but the values and prejudice that prompt the acquittal.9 And the solution is not to condemn the nullification power, but to spotlight the prejudice and parochial values that underlie the verdict in the hope that public outcry will force a re-examination of those values, and deter their implementation in subsequent cases. Surely nothing is gained by the pretense that the jurors lack the power to nullify, since that pretense deprives them of the opportunity to hear the very instruction that might compel them to confront their responsibility.

One often-cited abuse of the nullification power is the acquittal by bigoted juries of whites who commit crimes (lynching, for example) against blacks.10 That repellent practice cannot be directly arrested without jeopardizing important constitutional protections — the double jeopardy bar and the jury’s power of nullification. But the revulsion and sense of shame fostered by that practice fueled the civil rights movement, which in turn made possible the enactment of major civil rights legislation. That same movement spurred on the revitalization of the equal protection clause and, in particular, the recognition of the right to be tried before a jury selected without bias.11 The lessons we learned from these abuses helped to create a climate in which such abuses could not so easily thrive.

Moreover, it is not only the abuses of nullification that can inform our understanding of the community’s values and standards of blameworthiness. The noble uses of the power — the uses that “enhance the over-all normative effect of the rule of law” — also provide an important input to our evaluation of the substantive standards of the criminal law. The reluctance of juries to hold defendants responsible for unmistakable violations of the prohibition laws told us much about the morality of those laws and about the “criminality” of the conduct they proscribed. And the same can be said of the acquittals returned under the fugitive slave law12 as well as con*107temporary gaming and liquor laws.13 A doctrine that can provide us with such critical insights should not be driven underground.

On remand the trial judge should grant defendants’ request for a nullification instruction. At the very least,14 I would require the trial court to permit defendants to argue the question before the jury. But it is not at all clear that defendants would prevail even with the aid of an instruction or argument. After all, this ease is significantly different from the classic, exalted cases where juries historically invoked the power to nullify. Here, the defendants have no quarrel with the general validity of the law under which they have been charged. They did not simply refuse to obey a government edict that they considered illegal, and whose illegality they expected to demonstrate in a judicial proceeding. Rather, they attempted to protest government action by interfering with others — specifically, the Dow Chemical Company. This is a distinction which could and should be explored in argument before the jury. If revulsion against the war in Southeast Asia has reached a point where a jury would be unwilling to convict a defendant for commission of the acts alleged here, we would be far better advised to ponder the implications of that result than to spend our time devising stratagems which let us pretend that the power of nullification does not even exist.

ADAMS, Circuit Judge:

This case presents several difficult and subtle issues. Their resolution requires a sensitive understanding of human dignity, American legal and political history, and the interrelationship of those factors with the present criminal justice system, for it is this system that ensures that all persons may peacefully pursue their interests without undue interference from others.

Here, the defendants, by interrupting the business of a large chemical company, attempted to publicize their dissenting views regarding the morality of the American involvement in the Vietnam War. It is apparent that the defendants attempted to exploit their criminal trial by using it as a platform for further exposition of their beliefs, and to rely on their moral position as a defense of criminal charges lodged against them. In furtherance of their efforts to transform what would otherwise be an ordinary criminal trial into a “political” fray, defendants wished to represent themselves, to deviate from the usual mode of conducting a criminal trial, and to argue to the jury that although they were in violation of the applicable statutes, they should be acquitted because their actions were morally justified.

The rulings of the district court regarding (a) the defendants’ motions to proceed pro se, (b) the defendants’ right to have the court charge the jury as to the nullification issue, and (c) the content of the charge as actually given provide the foundation of this appeal.

In addressing these questions, some of which are to a large extent as philosophical as they are legal, the Court of Appeals is at some disadvantage — especially with regard to self representation — in evaluating the district court’s action from the cold record, divorced from the climate of the time when the trial took place. We must be mindful that the •events in question here — defendants’ criminal acts as well as the trial itself— occurred during a period of passionate *108and at times bitter political dissent. Several so-called “political” trials, including those of Dr. Benjamin Spoek, the Catonsville Nine, and the Chicago Seven, occurred prior to this proceeding. In particular, it is significant that this trial closely followed that of the Chicago Seven, a trial wracked with violent disruptions when the defendants there challenged the underlying structure of the criminal justice system as we know it today.

In the context of what was transpiring in the judicial process in 1968 and 1969, the trial judge here was faced with a formidable task. On one hand, he had to preserve the judicial atmosphere vital in criminal proceedings to assure that both the Government and the defendants received a fair trial on the merits. The judge could not help but be aware that as a society we believe that an orderly, adversary trial by jury is a most efficacious means of arriving at the truth of the matters into which the court is inquiring. On the other hand, he had to take account of the asserted rights of the defendants to present themselves as moral persons — possessed with dignity and freedom of spirit, attributes upon which our system of Government was founded and built — as they sought to be acquitted of their crimes. In evaluating whether the trial judge erred, we must be cognizant of the delicate balance he had to strike between ordered tranquility and America’s irrepressible desire for liberty. Only if the court unduly weighted the scales against the defendants, either by his application of the facts of this ease to the rules governing his actions or by his interpretation of the controlling law, may we reverse the convictions.

The apposite law, in my judgment, is accurately set forth in Judge Leventhal’s opinion. Specifically, I concur in his holding that defendants have a statutory right to proceed pro se in a federal criminal trial, and that, in this case, it is not necessary to decide the question in Constitutional terms.1 I also concur in the conclusion that the right to proceed pro se is waivable, either expressly or constructively, for example, by untimely assertion or by disruptive behavior. However, I disagree with Judge Leventhal’s factual conclusion that the defendant’s behavior here did not amount to a constructive waiver of the pro se right. Because I do not consider that the trial judge violated this right of the defendants, it is not necessary to decide whether such a violation may nevertheless be considered harmless error.

Since I would not reverse these convictions based on violation of defendants’ *109right to self-representation, I need not express an opinion on the issues of jury nullification and the charge to the jury. With regard to these latter questions, Judge Leventhal’s statement of the law is wholly acceptable.

A careful review of the transcript of the proceedings with respect to defendants’ motions to dispense with counsel indicates that the defendants on many occasions interrupted the proceeding for various reasons, despite the fact they were represented by counsel at that time. The printed record cannot inform us whether such interruptions were violent, impolite, contemptuous, or made with an impertinent or sarcastic tone of voice. However more than once the judge had to threaten intervention by the marshals to impress upon defendants that they had to obey orders of the court to be seated. At other times, the language used by the defendants appeared to be disrespectful or even rude. That the trial judge appeared to tolerate many instances of this type of behavior, and even engaged in discourse with defendants, does not prove that he acquiesced in such extraordinary tactics, but rather indicates that he was attempting to preserve some sort of order.

Although it may be argued that there are some things in the judicial process more important than decorum in a courtroom, we are not faced with such perplexing alternatives here. Dissent is a healthy manifestation of the freedoms we as a nation profess and cherish. And a criminal trial might serve as the seed around which a point of view may crystallize. But a courtroom, is not an arena in which dissention, particularly of a disruptive nature, may supplant, or even take precedence over, the task of administering justice.

As mentioned earlier, it is not without significance that this trial occurred at a time when the judicial system was being subjected to great stress because of the actions of some defendants and attorneys. The trial judge was surely aware of the publicity that attended the commission of the charged crimes, and the notoriety the trial itself would achieve. To paraphrase a slogan of the “new left”, he did not have to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind was blowing.

Although a gale may have been raging in the courts at that time, challenging the very assumptions upon which our system of justice is based, a counter-current was also evident. Only a month after the trial here in question, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Illinois v. Allen, supra,. There, the various justices gave notice that they were aware of the storm and the damage it could wreak, and that they were determined that the judiciary have the ability to steer clear of the danger.2

*110Certainly, what transpired here, coupled with the real threat of further disruption, was sufficient to alert the trial judge to what could be expected if the motions to dispense with counsel were granted. Thus, his determination that to grant the motions would turn the trial into a shambles does not appear to be unreasonable.

Accordingly, I would conclude that defendants had, by their conduct, waived their right to proceed pro se, and would affirm the rulings by the district court that the defendants in these circumstances had to be represented by counsel. Based on this and on Judge Leventhal’s opinion with regard to nullification and the charge, I would affirm the judgments of convictions.

On Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

The Government’s petition for rehearing leads us to amplify our opinion.

1. The Government argues that defendant’s right to defend himself at trial is not absolute, and cites the Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge (ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, § 6.6, Tentative Draft, June 1972, at 85), which states in pertinent commentary:

Moreover, the interest of the public in an orderly, rational trial is entitled to consideration in determining the defendant’s right to appear pro se. See United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916, 937 (2d Cir. 1963); Butler v. United States, 317 F.2d 249, 258 (8th Cir. 1963).

We agree with this statement to the extent set forth in our opinion, including e. g., that a defendant’s disruption may waive his right to pro se representation. We note that both Butler, cited in our opinion (at fn. 14), and Bentvena,, are cases involving requests for pro se representation made after the commencement of trial — a situation that, as our opinion points out, is entirely different from that of a pro se claim made timely before trial begins. Indeed in Bentvena the court stated, 319 F.2d at 938:

One charged with crime has an absolute right to do without an attorney and conduct his own defense (28 U.S.C. § 1654), but that is quite different from the right to discharge counsel after trial has begun. This latter right is a qualified one.

2. The petition for rehearing submits:

With particular regard to the value of an orderly trial, we believe that a trial judge should have authority to engraft reasonable conditions on the *111exercise of a defendant’s right of self-representation.

It suffices to say that this case did not present a situation where the trial judge sought to prescribe reasonable conditions to accompany pro se representation. We do not have before us whether, or in what manner, a trial judge could prescribe conditions for the purpose of assuring a trial without disruption — to carry out the implied premise that there will be reasonable cooperation from the defendants, as opposed to any manipulation of the trial process so as to interfere with fair administration of justice.

3. The Government stresses a contention that the court’s opinion improperly bypasses the doctrine of harmless error. Apart from the matters set forth in the opinion already filed, we observe that if the conventional doctrine of harmless error is applied, it will in effect undercut the right of pro se representation, since rarely if ever can there be a showing of prejudice in terms of result from the conduct of a trial by counsel. There is no requirement of a showing of prejudice when counsel has been denied. A like rule is applicable, although for different reasons, when pro se representation is denied.

4. The Government objects that our opinion means that any denial of pro se representation will per se require reversal. It does not require reversal in a case where the trial judge makes findings of defendants’ prior disruption, or refusal to assure reasonable cooperation, or inability to waive counsel, etc. The effort to cope with the problem of disruptions necessarily puts an obligation on the trial judge * to stake out the considerations explicitly and with care. In the absence of some exposition of an appropriate basis for denying his right, the defendant is entitled to a trial at which he is accorded his right to represent himself.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Circuit Judge ADAMS dissents.