Document: 368 U.S. 57 82 S.Ct. 159 7 L.Ed.2d 118 Gwendolyn HOYT, Appellant,v.STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 31. Argued Oct. 19, 1961. Decided Nov. 20, Herbert B. Ehrmann, Boston, Mass., for appellant. George R. Georgieff, Tallahassee, appellee. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellant, a woman, has been convicted in Hillsborough County, Florida, second degree murder her husband. On this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), U.S.C.A. from Florida Supreme Court's affirmance judgment conviction, 119 So.2d 691, we noted probable jurisdiction, 364 930, 81 382, 5 364, to consider appellant's claim that trial before an all-male jury violated rights assured by Fourteenth Amendment. The is such was product state statute which works unconstitutional exclusion women service. 2 law primarily question Fla.Stat., 1959, 40.01(1), F.S.A. This Act, requires grand and petit jurors be taken 'male female' citizens State possessed certain qualifications,1 contains following proviso: 3 'provided, however, name no female person shall service unless said registered with clerk circuit court desire placed on list.' 4 Showing since enactment only minimal number have so registered, appellant challenges constitutionality both its face as applied case. For reasons now follow decide contentions must rejected. At core argument nature crime she peculiarly demanded inclusion persons own sex jury. She charged killing husband assaulting him baseball bat. An information filed against 782.04, F.S.A., punishes 'any act imminently dangerous another, evincing depraved mind regardless human life, although without any premeditated design effect death particular individual * *.' As described Court, affair occurred context marital upheaval involving, among other things, suspected infidelity husband, culminating husband's final rejection his wife's efforts at reconciliation. It claimed, substance, would more understanding or compassionate than men assessing quality defense 'temporary insanity.' No made constituted otherwise afflicted elements supposed unfairness. Cf. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 717, 1639, 6 751. Of course, these premises misconceive scope right impartially selected That does not entitle one accused tailored circumstances case, whether relating condition defendant, charges tried. indiscriminately drawn those eligible community service, untrammelled arbitrary systematic exclusions. See Fay New York, 332 261, 284—285, 67 1613, 1625, 1626, 91 L.Ed. 2043, cases cited therein. result therefore depend shown. I. We address ourselves first challenge face. 8 Several observations should initially made. course recognize Amendment reaches class exclusions based race color, but also all 'single out' 'for different treatment some reasonable classification.' Hernandez Texas, 347 475, 478, 74 667, 670, 98 866. need not, accept invitation canvass case continuing validity dictum Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 310, 25 664, may constitutionally 'confine' duty 'to males.' constitutional proposition gone unquestioned eighty years decisions see supra, 289—290, 1628, had reflected, until 1957, congressional policy respecting federal courts themselves.2 Even were it assumed still open debate, present tenders narrower issues. 9 Manifestly, Florida's 40.01(1) purport exclude Rather, 'gives privilege serve impose duty.' 277, 1622. accords absolute exemption they expressly waive privilege. say, what form can regarded class. Where, here, asserted substance exclusionary device, relevant inquiry itself classification manner exercisable rests rational foundation. 10 In selection differentiated between two respects. given solely their sex, similar obtaining men.3 And provided effectuation less onerous governing exemptions men: are put list voluntarily service; men, hand, even if entitled exemption, included written law.4 40.10, 11 neither respect conclude 'based classification,' thus infected unconstitutionality. Despite enlightened emancipation restrictions protections bygone years, entry into many parts life formerly considered reserved woman center home family life. cannot say impermissible State, acting pursuit general welfare, relieved civic herself determines consistent special responsibilities. 12 alone concluding. Women three States Union.5 forty-seven where eligible, seventeen besides well District Columbia, accorded another.6 States, automatic, volunteers service.7 true, could limited done, who responsibilities.8 But regard irrational legislature preferable broad born State's historic public determination administratively feasible each instance responsibilities prospective juror serious enough warrant exemption. 13 Likewise reasonably full desirable relieve necessity affirmatively claiming it, while same time requiring assertion available them. Moreover, standpoint administrative concerns might 'impractical compel large numbers women, come clerk's office examination generally assert exemption.' 1622 compare 1862, 1862; H.R.Rep. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. A156 (1947).9 14 Appellant argues whatever enactment, practical operation results because like expected compulsion. connection points out when took place, 220 approximately 46,000 voters County constituting about 40 per cent total voting population county10—had volunteered limitation males, Hall 136 Fla. 644, 662 665, 187 So. 392, 400—401, removed 1949. Fla.Laws 1949, c. 25126. 15 argument, surely beside point. Given reasonableness involved relative paucity carry consequence bear. 'Circumstances chance dictate will during period.' 482, 672. 16 hold offensive II. 17 Appellant's attack fares better. 18 year here 1955, conjunction 40.02 required commissioners, aid local judges clerk, compile annually 10,000 inhabitants qualified jurors. 1957 existing become exhausted extent 3,000 new constructed taking over old remaining 7,000 jurors, including adding male build up requisite 10,000. county, earlier list. 19 representative office, actually testified follows reason others 'registered' list: 'Well, I ten went back three, four noticed how number.' further testified: 'Mr. Lockhart (one commissioners) told me go get names recent signed up, book (the register), there dates beginning can't don't know exactly far do just my names.' When read light Lockhart's testimony, printed margin,11 apparent idea avoid listing though disqualified advanced age reasons. 20 showing falls short giving procedure sinister complexion. true proportion (10) (some 220) 5%, 27% mistakenly appellate thought. listed compared 30 35 1952 (note 11, U.S., p. 66, 165) rises around 33%, hardly suggestive arbitrary, purpose. Equally unimpressive suggested 'male' asked contrast percentage. derived comparing males contained electors county. resulting meaningless record reveal granted (notes 4, 61, S.Ct., 162), excused called. (Id.) 21 way resembles involving color shown found Court conclusion purposeful discriminatory E.g., supra; Norris Alabama, 294 587, 55 579, 79 1074; Smith 311 128, 61 164, 85 84; Hill 316 400, 62 1159, 86 1559; Eubanks Louisiana, 356 584, 78 970, 991. There unfortunate atmosphere ethnic racial prejudices underlay situations depicted cases, nor long practice statistical them evinced. 22 depicted, indeed 'taxes our credulity,' 672 attribute officials deliberate very whose eligibility legislature, after contrary policy, declared few before. (See 64 161 supra.) sufficiently evident presence twelve failure add already list, attributable motive, purpose Nor slightest suggestion plan place economic organizational group. Thiel Southern Pacific Co., 328 217, 66 984, 90 1181; Glasser United 315 60, 83—87, 457, 470—472, 680. Ann 287, 1627. 23 Finally, disproportion independently carries significance. administration laws proportional representation factor. Akins 325 398, 403, 65 1276, 1279, 89 1692; Cassell 339 282, 286—287, 70 629, 631, 94 839; 290—291, 1629. 24 Finding substantial evidence arbitrarily undertaken incumbent make, hernandez 479—480, 671; 285, sustain Florida. supra. Affirmed. 26 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK DOUGLAS, concurring. 27 making good faith effort perform discrimination ground sex. Hence concur result, set forth Part II opinion. Jurors be: 'persons twenty-one state, resided respective counties six months, duly From First Judiciary Act 1789, 29, Stat. 73, 88, Civil Rights 71 634, 638, 1861, 1861—a period 168 years—the juries depended upon tribunal sat. Ballard 329 187, 191—192, 263, 181; 64—65, 462, By Congress 'Any citizen States,' specified qualifications, thereby qualifications wholly independent prescribed law. make ineligible Wilson, D.C., 158 F.Supp. 442, aff'd, Cir., 255 F.2d 686. indication action impelled considerations. 290, 1628. Men exempt age, bodily infirmity, engaged occupations. 40.08, Under 40.12, every file, annually, December 31 affidavit grounds based. forwarded who, sufficient, then omit affiant succeeding calendar year. denied, renewed summoned lost, file end preceding Ala.Code, 1940 (Recompiled Vol. 1958), Tit. 30, 21; Mississippi, Miss.Code Ann., 1942 1956), 1762; South Carolina, S.C.Code, 1952, 38—52. Alaska, Alaska Comp.Laws 55—7—24 Eighth; Arkansas, Ark.Stat. 1947, 39—112; D.C.Code, 1961, 1418; Georgia, Ga.Code 1933 (Supp.1958), 59—124; Idaho, Idaho Code, 1948, 2—411 (Supp.1961) 2—304; Kansas, Kan.Gen.Stat., 43—116, 43 117; La.Rev.Stat., 1950, 15:172.1; Minnesota, Minn.Stat.Ann., 593.04; (Supp.1960) 628.49; Missouri, Mo.Const., Art. I, 22(b), V.A.M.S.; Nevada, Nev.Rev.Stat., 6.020, subd. 3; Hampshire, N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann., 500:1; McKinney's N.Y.Consol.Laws, Law (Supp.1961), 507, 7; North Dakota, N.D.Cent.Code, 1960, 27—09—04; Rhode Island, R.I.Gen.Laws, 1956, 9—9—11; Tennessee, Tenn.Code 22—101, 22—108; Va.Code, 1950 (Replacement Supp.1960), 8—178(30); Washington, Wash.Rev.Code, 1951, 2.36.080; Wisconsin, Wis.Stat.Ann., 6.015(2). speaking, basis considerations Arizona, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann., 21—202, 21-336; California, Calif.Code Civ.Proc., 1954, 198, 200, 201; Colorado, Colo.Rev.Stat., 1953, 78—1—1(2), 78—1—3, 78—1—7; Delaware, Del.Code 10, 4504; Hawaii, Const., 12; Hawaii Rev.Laws, 221—3, 221—4; Illinois, Smith-Hurd's Ill.Ann.Stat., 1935 (Supp.1960), 78, 4; Indiana, Burns' Ind.Ann.Stat., 1946; Supp.1961), 3317; Iowa, Iowa Code 607.2, 607.3; Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat., 29.035; Maine, Me.Rev.Stat., 116, Maryland, Michie's Md.Ann.Code, 51, (women counties); Michigan, Mich.Stat.Ann., 1938 (Supp.1959), 27.263, 27.264, §§ 602.138, 602.139; Montana, Mont.Rev.Code 93—1304, 93—1305; Jersey, N.J.Stat.Ann., 2A:69—1, 2A:69—2; Mexico, N.M.Stat.Ann., 19—1—2, 19—1—31; Ohio, Page's Ohio Rev.Code 2313.12, 2313.16; Oregon, Ore.Rev.Stat., 10.040, 10.050; Pennsylvania, Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann., 1930, 17, 1280; S.D.Code, 1939 32.1001, 32.1002; Vermont, Vt.Stat.Ann., 1958, 12, 1410; W.Va.Code, 1955 5262. 500:1. eight undue hardship: Connecticut, Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev., 884, 51—218; Massachusetts, Mass.Gen.Laws 234, 1, 1A; Nebraska, Neb.Rev.Stat., 1943 (Reissue 25—1601.01, 25—1601.02; N.C.Gen.Stat., 1953; Supp.1959), 9—19; Oklahoma, Okla.Stat.Ann., 1951 38, 28; Vernon's Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., 1926 2135; Utah, Utah 78—46 10(14); Wyoming, Wyo.Comp.Stat., 1945 (Supp.1957), 12—104. exempts active armed forces, members police fire departments, actively federal, officials. House Report bill states: 'This section (§ 1862) makes provision specific classes usually interest health, safety, welfare. exempted serves waste court.' 114,247, 68,000 men. 'Q. All right. Now, getting March 8, book? A. Well, qualified, 220. Approximately 220? on, time, Clerk Circuit left off you've prepared? probably were. 1957? last averaging Why that, Lockhart? Because that's to, mean, down duty. You much choose from. now, you select women's registration take there, all. used system reference book, not? try check through. They did tried through City Directory. You'll find folks 65. fact, eighty. What am trying at, Lockhart, this. If names, testified, why difference apparently eligible? spread years. that? year, along seven ago, pretty hard whether—the status changed rapidly, not. Would correct, then, saying omitted 210 compiled list? wouldn't didn't books. I'm talking register duty? it's book. is. want know, picked picked—we average, panel drawn, attempt comply Statute, Section 40.01, subsection (1), reading me? like. 40.01 read.) asking, is, prepared Yes, sir. Did female's Court? intend to. checked registration. words, Yes. That's doubt what, small names. office.'

Category: 1