Document: 329 U.S. 187 67 S.Ct. 261 91 L.Ed. 181 BALLARD et al.v.UNITED STATES. No. 37. Argued Oct. 15, 1946. Decided Dec. 9, Messrs. Roland Rich Woolley and Ralph C. Curren, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case is here second time. It involves indictment conviction respondents using, conspiring to use, mails t defraud. Criminal Code s 215, 18 U.S.C. § 338, U.S.C.A. 338.; 37, 88, 88. The fraudulent scheme charged was promotion I Am movement, which alleged be a religious organization, through use mails. nature movement facts surrounding its origin growth are summarized in our prior opinion. 322 78, 64 882, 88 1148. sufficient say that petitioners were found guilty on charge by trial judge withheld from jury all questions concerning truth or falsity their beliefs doctrines. Circuit Court Appeals reversed granted new trial, holding it error withhold those jury. 9 Cir., 138 F.2d 540. We turn, sustained District ruling. Petitioners argued, however, even though erred reversing judgment ground, action justified other distinct grounds. But had not passed questions; we did have benefit views them. accordingly deemed more appropriate remand cause court so might first pass reserved. 2 On Appeals, one dissenting, affirmed without discussion issues raised. petition rehearing, denied, filed an discussed some but been 152 941. certiorari because serious administration criminal justice 3 met at outset with concession women included panel grand petit jurors Southern California where returned had; they intentionally systematically excluded panel.1 issue raised motion quash challenge array intentional systematic exclusion panel. Both motions denied denial assigned as appeal. question has each stage proceedings, except time before us. At point argued. instance United States, present As said, there obscured brought States upon below argued this Consequently, when remanded consideration remaining hold waived. That issue, concluding no page 944, see dissent 953. Under these circumstances cannot (and government does suggest) lost right urge here. Moreover, case, Reynolds v. 98 145, 168, 169, 25 244, error, presented argument, appears face record And Sibbach Wilson & Co., 312 1, 16, 61 422, 427, 85 479. 4 Congress provided federal shall same qualifications highest law State. Judicial 275, 28 338; 411, .S.C.A. 411. provision applies well juries.2 also prohibited disqualification citizens service 'on account race, color, previous condition servitude.'3 required chosen 'without reference party affiliations'.4 such parts district may direct 'so most favorable impartial incur unnecessary expense, unduly burden any part district'.5 None specific exemptions6 created along lines sex. 5 These provisions reflect design make 'a cross-section community' truly representative it. Glasser 315 60, 86, 62 457, 472, 86 680. 6 In California, States,7 eligible under local law. Civil Procedure, 198. system selection adopted contemplated, therefore, juries courts sitting would sexes. If excluded, only half available population drawn service. To put matter another way, referred state merely determine who qualified act juror. Whether method selecting proper law.8 supra, pages 85, 471, 7 Thiel Pacific 328 217, 66 984, similar problem. civil removed ground diversity citizenship involved liability common carrier passenger. All persons worked daily wage deliberately lists. held, exercise power supervision over courts, McNabb 318 332, 63 608, 87 819, plaintiff's strike should granted. gist ruling contained following statement case: 8 'The American tradition jury, considered connection either cr minal necessarily contemplates community. * mean, course, every must contain representatives economic, social, religious, racial, political geographical groups community; frequently complete representation impossible. mean prospective selected officials groups. Recognition given fact stratum society. Jury competence individual rather than group class matter. lies very heart system. disregard open door distinctions dicriminations abhorrent democratic ideals jury.' 220, 985. conclude purposeful departure that, correct permeated proceeding. 10 male various within community will if included. thought factors tend influence men—personality, background, economic status—and sex.9 Yet enough neither nor class. Men likewise do shoe foot, claim men panel? two sexes fungible; made up exclusively different composed both; subtle interplay among imponderables.10 insulate courtroom iota difference. flavor, quality sex excluded. indeed less true racial 11 prosecution mother her son allegedly program. Judge Denman his stated: 12 'In average family drawn, souls children infant early adolescent bodies receive lasting teaching truths mothers. families major social function concerned creation material things, largely food clothing housing children's bodies. 13 public schools ninety-five per cent primary grammar school teachers women. churches religions numbers attendants divine vastly exceed men. large vital America since Joseph Smith Christian Scientists founded woman, Mary Baker Eddy. 14 '* matters my viewpoint testimony conspiracy vile warrants strongest strictures prosecution. am woman juror Ballard five whose knee instilled them teachings Jesus interpreted Mrs. 15 'Well could sensitive highly spiritual character, rationalize money income acquired being devoted profits trust Eddy Science Monitor.' 951, 952. 16 illustrates panels times prejudicial defendants. reversible depend showing prejudice case.11 evil admitted prescribed standards selection. women, like group, Texas, 311 128, 164, 84, class, deprives broad base designed statutory scheme. stated Roemig, 52 F.Supp. 857, 862, 'Such operative destory basic democracy classlessness personnel.' 'does accord defendant type entitles him. administrative lawmakers seen fit from, actually guaranteed him.' Cf. Kotteakos 750, 1239. injury limited defendant—there system, institution, large, ideal reflected processes courts. 17 If, improper panel, trial. But, improperly therefore accordance procedure established Congress. Accordingly, dismissed. disposing reach urged suggested limiting prolong already lengthy told again us determination now left undecided. know so, assume speculative. charges framed limits earlier A properly constituted return indictments. convicted Reversed. 19 JACKSON, concurring. 20 concur result, quite reasons. join opinions FRANKFURTER BURTON effect dismissal question. opinion, abandoned parties not, ignored silently rejected decision, 1148, revived now. case. grounds Ballard, 92, 889, further ground. previously ruled inquire whether professions experiences represented defendants false can belief truth. leaves basis fraud especially indictment. requires, provably addition knowledge c iminal mail fraud. Since allowed findings, 21 (with whom CHIEF JUSTICE, JACKSON concur) dissenting. 22 supervisory lower directing because, practice then prevailing My brother demonstrates, believe, absence vitiate event, Court's authority supervise exercised vindicate judicial administration. finding fatal indictment, embraces themselves four years ago. 1944, justify means emphasizing duty adopting practice. Thus directs advance justice. 23 fully cognizant objection composition They objected court, saved overruled, errors specifications appeal Appeals. ample rely decided 680, indicated important what described modern basis. yet overruled briefs although vigorously claims reverse convictions. 'in issue' sense having briefed there, serves emphasize abandonment court. When Government's came Court, surely pressed seemed relevant sustain entered favor. For too settled require citation cases respondent support favor sustained, below. Their oral argument going validity mentioned. full it, took notice undermine entire proceedings. plainly decide hardly invited decision procedural ever abandoned, abandoned. 24 With preserved papers, petitioners, later us, confidence claim, hur error. helps allow resurrect dropped earlier.* Even now, find constitutes inroad safeguards involve due process. orders past pursued good faith misapprehension misconception corrected enforced 1944. order serve ensuring change taken place. 26 Dismissal end offenses charges. event relieve deciding central namely, used obtain final consists touching religion. terminate Act May 10, 1934, 48 Stat. 772, amended, July 1940, 54 747, 587, expressly By Act, reindictment defective untouched. amended provides 27 'Whenever insufficient cause, after period applicable statute limitations expired, next succeeding regular term insufficient, during thereof session.' Considering history litigation, reasonable assumption Gove nment press 29 had. ordered Government restored, while challenged foundation invoking constitutional guaranty freedom April 'withheld doctrines respondents.' 887, considering First Amendment affords immunity procurement statements one's experiences. Three Justices concluded verdict stand, and, late Chief Justice, afforded simply beliefs. fourth met. He dismissed inextricably bound traditional liberty view Amendment. Upon impliedly remitted flaw jury's conviction. After three here, main urged, extensive briefs, maintain inevitably lead curing defect resubmission believed feel so. whole machinery set motion. follow, naturally deem itself entertain twice undisturbed based liberty. 30 much playing await third review, hence, facing explicitly. doctrine prematurely feature harmonious functioning government. rule reason, mechanical formula avoiding aspect litigation fairly meeting issue. controversy really disposed selected, abstention adjudication imperative. Such barred limitations. seen, removes bar sanctions reindictment, anticipated litigation. escape responsibility dealing remediable invalidity leaving untouched valid. Of course acquitted purports interests ought permit waste unfairness Especially almost six years, starting round result decision. 31 short, ill continue unless beyond sustained. give implied sanction continuance prosecution, withholding inescapable disposition Candor repels requirements 32 BURTON, 33 Altough policy requiring inclusion lists State, believe dismissing 1941 binding compelled own discretion including excluding Without depending breadth circumstances, submit reasons strengthen position retroactively disapprove conformed exactly 34 Ever Judicature subordinated determining jurors. said: 'the requisite laws State citizens, *.' Section 29, September 24, 1789, 73, Similarly, reads: 'Jurors respectively, qualifications, subject hereinafter contained, entitled exemptions, summoned.' Code, 36 1087, 1164, 411.1 35 There constitutional, placed jurors, never done Instead, include states states. Crowley 194 461, 731, 1075. recognition sees nothing seriously continued duty. availability accommodations treated factor called Acts Resolves R.I. (1939), c. 700, 37;People Shannon, 203 Cal. 139, 263 P. 522. See Report Conference Committee Selection Jurors (1942), 23. Subordination need physical tacit fundamental infraction rights litigants juries. employments, distinguished men, law, hours conditions work. West Coast Hotel Co. Parrish, 300 379, 57 578, 81 703, 108 A.L.R. 1330. considerations general increasing sound between suffrage, office holding, education, status, liberties, church membership, cultural activities, war service, emphasizes lack reason making presence sex, such, Miller, Woman Juror (1922), Ore.L.Rev. 30, 40. 37 calling duty, effect, substantial exemption People Parman, Cal.2d 17, 92 P.2d 387; supra. 105, 107. thus equally assumed adequate regardless otherwise serve. Hyde 225 347, 374, 793, 804, 56 1114, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614; Agnew 165 36, 44, 235, 238, 41 624. While persuasive indicating prejudiced Federal state. Parman supra; re Mana, 178 213, 172 986, L.R.A.1918E, 771; Manuel, Cal.App. 153, 182 306. 38 permitted any, consist failure listing permits regards directory mandatory 39 distinguishing example, acted actual objectionable discontinued,2 whereas, changed ago conform, least substantially, approved Also, complained consisted thereby detracting character list, manner contrary purpose Here practice, congressionally future about 40% shows h d eligibility once enlarge into requirement 40 reasons, unable setting aside verdict. convictions affirmed, Stone: 'Certainly none respondents' violated prosecuted representations beliefs, otherwise.' 90, 888, JUSTICE dissent. joins far paragraph relates affirmance Women members beginning February Term, Chaplin, 682. 276, 412, drawing 'All petit' 'possessing prescribed' 278, 415, 415. 412. 277, 413, 413. No person 'more year'. 286, 423, 423. Artificers workmen employed armories arsenals exempted 50 57, 57. 288, 426, disqualifications prosecutions bigamy, polygamy unlawful cohabitation. p. An (subsequently dismissed) against moved denied. 105. seems influenced determined resulted obligatory, qualify only. 522; 387. Juror, Oregon L.Rev. 30; cf. Carson, (1928), 15. problem discussions androcentric theory gynaecocentric scientific literature. Ward, Pure Sociology (1903), Ch. XIV; Draper al., Human Constitution Clinical Medicine (1944), VI. Wuichet 561—563. invoked inapposite. afford done. affirming noticed sentence imposed imprisonment hard labor, whereas authorized ordinary imprisonment. attention, kind notice. everybody overlooked, would, uncorrected, subjected punishment severe be, goes bearing fairness conviction, sentence. proceeding, formal resentencing noted rehearing evidently anyone. way surface duly dropped, buried resurrected afterthought makeweight merits. Again, 479, sought punish contempt specifically exempt punishment. Error 'fundamental nature' apparently reappears tail containing definitions jurors' Fifth Sixth Amendments guarantee juries, generally agreed wherever declared respective Wood, 299 123, 177, 185, 78; Tynan 297 F. 178, 179, 266 604, 45 91, 69 463; Hoxie 762, 273 755, 47 459, 71 876. appears, 1943, discontinued. Louis E. Goddman, Judge, N.D., Calif., Selections Affected Company, Journal Bar 352, 357.

Category: 1