Opinion ID: 1711324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: pay for child support care for jurors

Text: Roberts argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to provide child care for single jurors with dependent children. Three venirepersons indicated that they would have child care problems if required to serve on a sequestered jury. Roberts maintains that failure to provide assistance for child care results in a systematic exclusion of women, blacks and those of socio-economic status in violation of the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The court initially deferred ruling on the motion, in order to see whether it would even be necessary. Later, when Roberts asked the court to reconsider the motion, in light of the responses of certain venirepersons, the trial court stated it had no authority to provide such assistance. Roberts asserts that the trial court does have the authority, citing to section 550.120.2(4), which defines costs as [a]ny other expense directly related to the trial and prosecution of such criminal charge found necessary by the trial judge hearing the case. It is not constitutionally required that the courts budget child care for jurors. State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Mo. banc 1992). 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. Id. The point is denied.