Document: 439 U.S. 357 99 S.Ct. 664 58 L.Ed.2d 579 Billy DUREN, Petitioner,v.State of MISSOURI. No. 77-6067. Argued Nov. 1, 1978. Decided Jan. 9, 1979. Syllabus Petitioner was convicted crimes in a Missouri State court notwithstanding his contention that right to trial by jury chosen from fair cross section community denied provisions law granting women who so request an automatic exemption service. Under the challenged jury-selection system, before wheel is filled may claim response prominent notice on questionnaire, and, prior appearance jurors for service, are afforded additional opportunity decline service returning summons or simply not reporting duty. established 54% adults forum county were women; during 8 10 months immediately only 26.7% those summoned and 14.5% persons postsummons weekly venires this period women. For month which petitioner's chosen, averaged 15.5% Petitioner's all-male selected panel 53, whom 5 The Supreme Court questioned aspects statistics but held underrepresentation did violate fair-cross-section requirement set forth Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 522, 95 692, 42 690, under defendant order establish prima facie violation must show (1) group alleged be excluded "distinctive" community; (2) group's representation source juries reasonable relation number such (3) results systematic exclusion process. Held: law, resulting average less than 15% county, violates "fair-cross-section" Sixth Amendment as made applicable States Fourteenth. Pp. 363-370. (a) If women, "are sufficiently numerous distinct men," systematically venires, cannot satisfied. Taylor, supra, at 531. p. 364. (b) There no evidence 1970 census data petitioner relied distorted percentage time trial, below erred concluding with approximately "reasonably representative" relevant community. 364-366. (c) proof showed generally venire, attributable their process both stages, low (14.5%) final, stage. 366-367. (d) Respondent satisfy its burden showing any significant state interest justifying infringement constitutional drawn It exemptions other caused Nor does exempting all because preclusive domestic responsibilities some constitute sufficient justification disproportionate permitted Missouri. 367-370. 556 S.W.2d 11, reversed remanded. Lee M. Nation, Kansas City, Mo., Ruth B. Ginsburg, New York petitioner. Nanette Laughrey, Jefferson respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 In 690 (1975), process, pools community, denies criminal right, Fourteenth Amendments, petit community.1 system invalidated woman could serve unless she filed written declaration her willingness do so.2 As result, although 53% eligible 1% 1,800 whose names year appellant Taylor's female. Id., 524. 2 At our decision provided they volunteered serve.3 However, five States, including Missouri, requesting serve.4 Subsequent three these eliminated exemption.5 Only respondent case, Tennessee6 continue exempt upon request.7 Today we hold averaging female Constitution's requirement. 3 * Duren indicted 1975 Circuit Jackson County, first-degree murder robbery. pretrial motion quash again post-conviction new he contended service.8 Both motions denied. 4 hearings motions, County begins annual mailing questionnaire randomly voter registration list. Approximately 70,000 questionnaires mailed 1975. contains list occupations categories basis either disqualification9 exemption10 service.11 Included paragraph prominently addressed "TO WOMEN" states part: "Any elects will fill out mail commissioner once."12 6 A similar MEN OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE," also statutorily request.13 7 sent placed master except indicate disqualification exemption. Summonses prospective wheel. summons, like special directions men over advising them return if desire serve. practice even treated having claimed fail appear appointed day.14 Other seeking stage make personal application court. according census, adult inhabitants He periods June-October January-March 1976,15 11,197 2,992 26.7%, Of summoned, 741 4,378 appeared Thus, (741 5,119) female.16 March 1976, when began, (110 707).17 53-person there 12 men.18 None foregoing statistical disputed. 9 affirming conviction, two presentation. First, it considered figures inadequate six years old might precisely mirror registered vote. Second, had unequivocally demonstrated extent appearing due rather sex-neutral age 65. went hold, however, accepting proof, "the wheel, well above acceptable standards." 15-17 (1977).19 We granted certiorari, 435 1006, 98 1875, 56 387 (1978), concern consistent Taylor. II 11 think certain crucial respects misconceived nature inquiry holding "petit fairly representative community," U.S., 538, S.Ct., 702, explained "jury wheels, names, panels, exclude distinctive groups thereby reasonably thereof." Ibid.20 13 requirement, A. 14 With respect first part test, without doubt men" "if Amendment's satisfied." 531, 698. B 15 second prong case Initially, demonstrate up underrepresented, conceptual benchmark stipulated population service21 female, while has measurement actual (54%). court, never data. Although speculated changing patterns between 1976 unequal women22 rendered questionable frame reference,23 whatsoever record suggest significantly trial. presentation clearly adequate characteristics purpose making violation.24 16 Given slightly half disagree conclusion containing rep resentative""S § S mirrored population, more one every would have been fact, female; 85% male. Such gross discrepancy requires represented County. C 17 Finally, necessary met His undisputed demonstration large occurred just occasionally venire nearly manifestly indicates cause systematic—that is, inherent particular utilized. 18 Duren's selection took place. indication process—the canvass sign next stage—the construction Less 30% demonstrating substantially larger answering ineligibility Moreover, given another exemption, presumed respond summons. much lower (26.7%). 19 quite obviously selected. final pool operation Missouri's criteria—whether statutory exemptions—as implemented Women therefore underrepresented within meaning Taylor.25 III 20 end into whether occurred. "States remain free prescribe qualifications provide long said lists panels community." 701. cautioned "[t]he proper overcome merely rational grounds," id., 534, 699, 700. Rather, primarily advanced criteria, result group.26 21 suggested greater qualifying claiming permissible exemptions, 65, teachers, government workers. S.W.2d, 16. further argues proved "any effect" responsible venires. Brief 15. 22 once bears attainment incompatible interest. See 533-535, 699-700. Assuming, arguendo, mentioned justify failure achieve complained of. mere suggestions assertions effect insufficient. 23 possible course, Neither nor brief offered substantial questioning oral argument, counsel ventured safeguarding important role played home family life.27 But insufficient What stated "opt in" equally out" exemption: 24 "It untenable days hardship each perform society spare present duties. This many, burdensome sort should exempted task performed administrative convenience dealing class diluting quality judgment trials. 25 26 "If ever unqualified sit situated none required since passed." 534-535, 537, 700, 701 (footnote omitted). 27 recognize assuring members care children available so. An appropriately tailored would, think, survive challenge. stress, guarantee exercise caution broad most occupational inevitably involve degree overinclusiveness underinclusiveness, category expressly limited magnitude distinctiveness requirement—such women—runs danger repeat observation unlikely based hardship, incapacity, needs, "would pose threats remaining 28 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 29 So ordered. 30 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 31 steadfastly maintained "distinguished" Hoyt Florida, 368 57, 82 159, 118 (1961), rested Amendments Equal Protection Clause Amendment. Today's makes halfhearted effort fiction footnotes 26, declaring cases Clause, Alexander 405 625, 92 1221, 536 (1972), "entirely analogous" hand. difference apparently lies among others, equal protection analysis challenges rebuttable absence intent discriminate, irrelevant, "adequate justification" classes being compared. reminded, disproportionality justified "on grounds" "a advanced" criteria representation. Ante, 367 (emphasis supplied). That language strong overtones Court's recent distinctions women: " '[C]lassifications gender governmental objectives related achievement objectives.' Califano Goldfarb, 430 199, 210-211, 97 1021, 1029, 51 270 (1977) (plurality opinion), quoting Craig Boren, 429 190, 197, 451, 456, 50 397 (1976) Constitution require, jurisprudence ill served, hybrid doctrine developed case.* 32 Even I able reconcile agile amalgamation Due Process deciding little about where road embarked ultimately lead. outright racial groups,Smith Texas, 311 128, 61 164, 85 L.Ed. 84 (1940), women,Ballard United 329 187, 67 261, 91 181 (1946), Smith, covert, Ballard overt. concluded, assume cases, "women drawn." 533, 699. 33 actually prohibited serving juries. requirements, inapplicable men, affirmatively known practical purposes effect. Indeed, 175 parish question. 524, 694. facts, "exclusion" case. 34 Here, hand, sentence asserts can, admits cannot, treat used "excludes" saying: "Today requirement." 360. indeed uses word contrary use am familiar. undoubtedly compared juries, therein 35 Eventually insist identically (which intimated dicta, ante, 365-366, 370), later sequel line discover peculiar magic enable distinguish higher percentages 50. whichever routes chooses travel question presented, today puts legislators local commissioners serious disadvantage wholly unwarranted relies. concludes exactly alike imposed burdens many particularly populated areas, necessarily producing corresponding increase character panels. though State's permits playing numbers game. 36 attorneys general prosecuting various sensibly legal materially different 20% representation, press abolish Understandably unhappy prospect still convictions armed robbery aside behest male defendants insufficiently panel, informed parochial views halls respective legislatures. These presumably harmony organized women's amici curiae asserting prohibits choice 37 selections likely casualties today's Apparently realizing desirability predictability otherwise tried freed game, ventures view "exemption tailored" ensuring "survive challenge." 370. repeats "observation" "unlikely 'would community.' Ibid. warned "exercise service," "most underinclusiveness . ." 38 lot legislator judge attempting conform dictates opinion, yet what very valid interests excusing individuals surely happy one. Will above-quoted dicta soon meet same fate longer? 39 documentation proposition pleasant experience jurisdictions tends consuming often seemingly useless point juror. To engage classifications, require minimum effort, frustrations least alleviated, perhaps goal "fair section" advanced. On forms deemed constitutionally impermissible, case-by-case "opting juror, ordeal juror becomes burdensome, consuming. Since wish immunize against reversal exegesis requirements natural tendency impose citizen judicial administrators avoid possibility successful attack composition jury. 40 probability, then, abandon gender-based occupation-based classifications Doctors nurses, virtually irreplaceable smaller communities, bring own "flavor" "indefinable something" venire. 372 n. so, then basis, join others skills demand whiling away rooms countless courthouses. 41 No lawyer managerially sound solution problem administration, thoroughly steeped teachings mandated Constitution. people can conscripted nationwide, armies, fit classification designed. alternative treatment entails proportion sought achieved. short winners petitioner, now conviction murder. They demonstrable unfairness trials, obsession represent whatever be. losers community—men duty minimize inconvenience entails, striving justice function, citizenry incarceration after believe intended interpreted produce quixotic result. 526-531, 695-698, 701; Duncan 391 145, 88 1444, 491 (1968). standing challenge member class. 526, 695. La.Const., Art. VII, (1921), La.Code Crim.Proc., 402 (West 1967), reproduced 523 nn. 2, 694 2. Two Hampshire recently abolished requiring qualified volunteer N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 500:1 (1955), repealed 1967 N.H.Laws, ch. 100, 1; Fla.Stat. 40.01(1) Fla.Laws, 67-154, 1. current 500-A:2 (Supp.1977) (providing caring 12); pregnant 15). Ga.Code 59-124 (1965); Mo.Const., 22(b), Mo.Rev.Stat. 494.031(2) (Supp.1978); N.Y.Jud.Law §§ 507(7), 599(7), 665(7) (McKinney 1964); R.I.Gen.Laws 9-9-11 (1969); Tenn.Code Ann. 22-101 (Supp.1978), 22-108 (1955). addition, Alabama allow until 1966, see Ala.Code, Tit. 30, (1958), "for good shown." 1966 Ala.Acts, 429, 4; (Supp.1973). Ga.Laws, pp. 779-780; N.Y.Laws, chs. 4, 21; R.I.Pub.Laws, 233, relating qualification 59-112 512 Supp.1978); 9-9-1, (Supp.1977). replaced cause, provision setting Ala.Code 12-16-43 (1975). Tennessee constitutionality "highly suspect" declined test "pursuant principles announced presented reflects consequences [its] operation," Scharff State, 551 671, 676 (1977). occasion, House Representatives passed bill repeal H.R. 105, 89th Assembly, 1st Sess. Daughtrey, Cross Sectionalism Jury-Selection Procedures 43 Tenn.L.Rev. 49-50 Massachusetts, excuse involving sex crimes. Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., 234, 1A 1959). Const., provides: "No shall disqualified sex, requests therefrom sworn juror." mandate providing: "The following persons, shall, timely excused grand petit: "(2) Any 497.030 (Supp.1978) infra. Felons, illiterates, attorneys, judges, Armed Forces, ineligible 494.020 (Supp.1978). addition request: medical doctors, clergy, preceding year, "[a]ny person regular place employment tend adversely affect public safety, health, welfare interest," undue hardship." 494.031 form prescribed statute 497.130 Ibid.; App. 43. 10, supra. authorized statute, failing report subject contempt 494.080 (1952). allows "before juror," 8, reveal summonses November December smallest venue, 7.3%, week January (12 164 appearing), largest appearing, 21.8%, (32 147 appearing). 45. (Mo.1977). 5. rejected renewed mean "that 702. Louisiana felony, older, literate English physically mentally capable 401 1967). speculation belied U. S. Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Current Population Reports: Voting Registration Election Table 69.9% 71.1% found fault include aged 21, included older. summary row older ages 39. event, involves comparison makeup sources lists. previously accepted 6-year-old black. 627, 1223, (1972). involved analogous cross-section violation, infra, Alexander, establishing population. Federal District encompassing childcare exemption—albeit, Amended Plans Western Random Selection Service Grand Petit Jurors Fifty-three percent 39.8% 24, 3, (Seiler, J., dissenting). arguing reduction "unconstitutional underrepresentation," amicus curiae, cite Castaneda Partida, 482, 496, 1272, 1281, 498 (1977); 629, 1224; Turner Fouche, 396 346, 359, 90 532, 539, 567 (1970); Whitus Georgia, 385 545, 552, 87 643, 647, 599 (1967). Those entirely cited shown indicated discriminatory essential element violation—discriminatory purpose. rebuttal determinative Castaneda, 493-495, 1279-1280; Mt. Healthy City Bd. Ed. Doyle, 274, 287, 568, 576, 471 contrast, disproportion itself demonstrates defendant's section. infringement. Tr. Oral Arg. 28. majority truth concerned rights participate "impartial jury" vividly crablike movement early internally rationale decision. 1880, recognized blacks whites compel "to submit life man race, color alone, however .." Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 309, added). Likewise, recognizes, 369-370, bit jurors. If, essentially fungible duty, arises how infringes decided impartial tribunal. Counsel asked argument explain difference, view, jurors, offered: indefinable something—. understand feel it, easy describe; yes, difference." resorted mystical incantations Peters Kiff, 407 493, 2163, 83 Because white lacked raise forced turn Noting excluding identifiable segment "is remove room qualities human varieties experience, range unknown unknowable," defendant, race 503, 2168. Similarly, 698, largely transcendental notion flavor, quality" absent Lacking omniscience, willing accept assurances existence "unknowable" nature, "flavor[s]," something[s]." close really mysticism. truly jury, entitled composed perfect Yet stressed: "Defendants composition, protected supposedly impartiality adequately venire; struck irrelevant. majority's analysis, entitle lost unrepresented certainly clear all. Instead, segments through concededly returned say least, irrational means vindicating unconstitutionally end, Carter Jury Comm'n, 320, 518, 549 (1970), injunctive relief

Category: 1