Tumey v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States · 1927 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessJudicial DisqualificationImpartial TribunalFourteenth Amendmentdue processbiased adjudicatorpecuniary interest

Facts

Tumey was arrested and tried before the Mayor of North College Hill for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor under Ohio's Prohibition Act. Under the Ohio statutes and a village ordinance, the Mayor received his costs only upon conviction, and village officers, prosecutors, marshals, and detectives were also funded from fines collected in liquor cases, with part of those fines going to the village treasury. The Mayor was also the village's chief executive officer, responsible for village finances and supervision of officers involved in enforcement. Tumey objected before trial that the Mayor was disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Mayor denied the objection, tried the case, convicted him, fined him $100, and ordered imprisonment until fine and costs were paid.

Issue

Whether Ohio's statutory scheme, which allowed a village mayor to try prohibition offenses while receiving costs only upon conviction and while serving as the chief executive of a village financially benefited by convictions, deprived the accused of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

It violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process to subject a criminal defendant's liberty or property to the judgment of a court whose judge has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in convicting him. Due process is also denied by any procedure that would offer a possible temptation to the average judge to forget the State's burden of proof or not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the State and the accused.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a small criminal court in Dayton, Judge Elena Marsh receives a regular municipal salary. A local ordinance also gives her a $25 adjudication fee, payable only when a defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor; if the defendant is acquitted, she receives nothing beyond salary. Noah Kline objects before trial that the arrangement violates due process.

How should a court rule on Noah's due process objection?

Explanation. Due process is denied when a criminal defendant is tried by a judge who has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him. The majority held that the constitutional defect does not depend on proving actual bias; it is enough that the arrangement offers a possible temptation to the average judge. A fee payable only upon conviction creates that direct personal interest.