Case Name: KING v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1948-01-13
Citations: 165 F.2d 408
Docket Number: No. 13610
Parties: KING v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
KING v. UNITED STATES.
No. 13610.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 1948.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1948.
William J. Fanning, of Sulphur Springs, Tex., for appellant.
David R. Boatright, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Ft. Smith, Ark. (R. S. Wilson, U. S>. Atty., and Chas. A. Beasley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Ft. Smith, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, THOMAS, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the same question as Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 405.
Appellant, by motion to vacate judgment, sought to have his sentence and conviction set aside, on the ground that there had been an intentional and systematic exclusion of women (who are eligible for jury service in Arkansas) from the grand jury by which he was indicted and from the petit jury by which he was tried. The trial court denied the motion.
No objection had previously been made to either the grand jury or the petit jury in the trial court or on the appeal taken to this court from the conviction, King v. United States, 8 Cir., 144 F.2d 729, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 854, 65 S.Ct. 711, 89 L.Ed. 1413.
As the Wright case holds, the right to not have women intentionally and systematically excluded from a jury panel is one that may be waived, and it will ordinarily be deemed to have been so waived where timely objection is not made in the proceedings and the question is sought to be raised for the first time by a motion to vacate the judgment.
It may be added that the practice of excluding women from the jury in the Dis trict of Arkansas has apparently since been discontinued, so that there also would be no possible basis for a reversal of the judgment here as a general corrective measure.
The judgment is affirmed.