Document: 420 U.S. 31 95 S.Ct. 704 42 L.Ed.2d 790 Willie J. DANIELv.State of LOUISIANA. No. 74—5369. Jan. 27, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant Daniel was tried before a jury the Twenty-second Judicial District Court Louisiana and convicted armed robbery on November 20, 1973. The that appellant selected from venire chosen in accordance with procedures then provided for La.Const., Art. VII, § 41, La.Code Crim.Proc., 402. raised timely motion to quash petit venire, contending these violated Fourteenth Amendment because they resulted systematic exclusion women which his chosen. His denied this denial affirmed appeal Supreme Court. 297 So.2d 417 (1974). 2 In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 522, 692, 690 (1975), we held Sixth Amendments command juries must be source fairly representative community. case, it is not disputed appellant's did constitute fair cross section question whether our decision applied retroactively other defendants whose opportunity raise objection jury-selection had passed as date Taylor. We hold retroactively, matter federal law, convictions obtained by empaneled prior decision. 3 As stated supra, at 535—536, S.Ct., 700, 'until today no case squarely venires deprives criminal defendant right trial an impartial drawn community.' Given statement, well doctrinal underpinnings retroactive application clearly controlled DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 88 2093, 20 1308 (1968), where Duncan 391 145, 1444, 491 applicable only prospectively. three relevant factors, identified Stovall Denno, 388 293, 297, 87 1967, 1970, 18 1199 (1967), are 4 '(a) purpose served new standards, (b) extent reliance law enforcement authorities old (c) effect administration justice standards.' 5 Taylor, Duncan, were concerned generally function played system justice, more specifically preventing arbitrariness repression. rest premise every trial, or any particular necessarily unfair conducted what determined requirements Amendment. officials state legislatures decisions Court, such Hoyt Florida, 368 57, 82 159, 7 118 (1961), structuring their systems clear. Here, requirement retrying significant number persons would do little, if anything, vindicate interest stake have substantial impact States past produced comport enunciated 6 judgment affirmed. It so ordered. 8 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 9 conviction I see equities permit retroactivity ruling disallow here. My view has been should make constitutional all cases one. can never know differences, any, pursuant standards procedural due process. recorded my dissents like situations, e.g., 302—303, 1972, 1199; Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 640, 85 1731, 1743, 14 601; Johnson New Jersey, 384 719, 736, 86 1772, 1782, 16 882; Whisman Georgia, 895, 1977, 1001.* When Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694, decided its also granted certiorari, id., 499, 1640. 40 additional raising same point; when certiorari each them, 1020 1025. dissented denials saying: 10 'Mr. Douglas opinion judgments below reversed. He remand being clear records principles announced ante, p. applied. sees reason discriminating against petitioners, having come here direct review vintage Arizona.' Id., 1020—1021. 11 Miranda, largely change take one several many presenting issue. is, think, highly but others pending If sought equal either them prospective only. * See Tehan United ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 419, 459, 467, 15 453; 635, 2096, 1308; Fuller alaska, 393 80, 82, 89 61, 62, 21 212; Desist States, 394 244, 255, 1030, 1037, 22 248; Jenkins Delaware, 395 213, 222, 1677, 1682, 23 253; Mackey 401 667, 713, 91 1160, 1170, 28 404; Adams Illinois, 405 278, 286, 92 916, 921, 202; Michigan Payne, 412 47, 58, 93 1966, 36 736; Tucker, 433, 464, 94 2357, 2374, 41 182.

Category: 0