Opinion ID: 2449917
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Provide Care for Dependents of Jurors

Text: Hall claims that the trial court erred in overruling his pretrial motion requesting care for the dependents of those selected to serve on the jury. He argues that failing to provide such a service effectively and unconstitutionally prevents minorities and the poor from serving as jurors. This Court rejected this argument in State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Mo. banc 1992), stating: While many Missouriansparticularly the poor, minorities, and womenneed child care, any disparate impact on minorities by the scarcity of child care is unintentional. Government as a whole, including the judiciary, faces severe constraints on resources. The decision not to provide child care is a rational decision, facially neutral with regard to race and gender. As there is no intention to discriminate, the disproportionate impact on minorities and women is not sufficient to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor Article I, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution.... Likewise, poverty is not a suspect class requiring strict scrutiny.... Unfortunately, familial obligations prevent individuals from serving on juries.... Solutions to these problems are not, however, within this Court's jurisdiction, but rather lie within the jurisdiction of those bodies with budgetary authority. (citations omitted). The trial court did not err in overruling the motion.