Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1979

Duren v. Missouri

439 U.S. 357 | 99 S. Ct. 664 | 58 L. Ed. 2d 579 | 1979 U.S. LEXIS 208

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case established the modern three-part test for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim and held that Missouri could not broadly allow women, but not men, to opt out of jury service when that practice drastically and systematically reduced women’s presence on jury venires.

Background

Billy Duren was indicted in Jackson County, Missouri, for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery. Before trial, and again after conviction, he moved to quash the petit-jury panel and sought a new trial. He argued that Missouri’s system violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community.

Missouri allowed any woman who requested it to be excused from jury service. Jackson County implemented that rule aggressively: women could claim the exemption by mail, and women who failed to appear after receiving a summons were treated as having claimed it. Men seeking most other exemptions had to apply to the court.

Duren showed that women were 54% of Jackson County’s adult population, but only 26.7% of those summoned for service and 14.5% of those who actually appeared on weekly venires during the relevant period were women. In the month of his trial, women made up 15.5% of the venire; only 5 of 53 members of his panel were women, and the jury ultimately selected was all male.

The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. It questioned the usefulness of the census figures and whether the gender-based exemption, rather than other neutral exemptions, caused the disparity. But it also held that even accepting Duren’s evidence, the representation of women was constitutionally acceptable. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Duren established a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement.

Holding

Yes. Women are a distinctive group, their roughly 14.5% representation on Jackson County venires was not fair and reasonable compared with their 54% share of the adult community, and the disparity was systematic.

Reasoning

The Sixth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that the jury wheel, pool, panel, or venire from which petit juries are selected be drawn from a fair cross section of the community. It does not require that the petit jury actually chosen mirror the community. To make a prima facie showing, a defendant must establish that the excluded group is distinctive, that its representation on venires is not fair and reasonable relative to its community representation, and that the underrepresentation results from systematic exclusion in the selection process.

Taylor v. Louisiana had already established that women are a sufficiently numerous and distinctive group for fair-cross-section purposes. Thus, systematic elimination or substantial systematic underrepresentation of women on jury panels cannot satisfy the Sixth Amendment requirement.

Duren’s undisputed statistics adequately established the relevant benchmark and the disparity. The State had not challenged the 1970 census data at trial, and the Missouri Supreme Court’s speculation about population changes or possible differences in voter registration did not undermine the evidence. With women constituting about 54% of the adult population, venires that were only about 14.5% female were grossly unrepresentative: fewer than one in six prospective jurors was female, while more than one in two adults in the community was female.

The disparity was systematic because it recurred in every weekly venire over nearly a year, rather than appearing as an isolated result of random selection. The evidence also identified where the disparity arose. Women were not shown to be underrepresented in the original questionnaire mailing, but their share fell below 30% among persons summoned and then to 14.5% among those appearing. Missouri’s opt-out exemption for women, coupled with Jackson County’s practice of treating a woman’s failure to appear as a claim of exemption, made the underrepresentation inherent in the jury-selection system.

Issue #2

Whether Missouri justified the systematic underrepresentation of women by a sufficiently significant state interest.

Holding

No. A blanket exemption available to every woman based on generalized assumptions about women’s domestic roles did not sufficiently advance a significant state interest to justify the constitutional infringement.

Reasoning

Once a defendant establishes a prima facie fair-cross-section violation, the State bears the burden of showing that the disproportionate exclusion is necessary to advance a significant state interest. The State may establish relevant juror qualifications and reasonable exemptions, but the fair-cross-section right cannot be overcome by merely rational grounds; the challenged feature of the selection process must manifestly and primarily advance an important state objective.

Missouri could not avoid that burden by suggesting that sex-neutral exemptions—for older persons, teachers, government workers, or others—might have contributed to the low percentage of women. The record contained no proof that those exemptions caused the disparity. After Duren’s prima facie showing, unsupported assertions about possible alternative causes were insufficient.

The only substantial justification offered for the women’s exemption was protecting women’s role in home and family life. The Court rejected the premise that every woman would face special hardship from jury service or that society could not spare women from domestic responsibilities. Administrative convenience in exempting women as a class could not justify diluting the community judgment represented in criminal jury venires.

The Court recognized that a State has a legitimate interest in ensuring that persons responsible for child care can remain available for that task. A narrowly tailored exemption for actual caregiving responsibilities might survive constitutional review. But States must use caution in creating exemptions for broad, distinctive groups such as women, because such exemptions risk producing the very underrepresentation the fair-cross-section guarantee forbids.

Dissents

Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court’s fair-cross-section doctrine was an unstable hybrid of Sixth Amendment and equal-protection principles. In his view, the Court claimed not to decide the case under equal protection, yet required a justification closely resembling heightened scrutiny for sex classifications. He believed the Court should not obscure an equal-protection concern about women’s opportunity to serve on juries by recasting it as a criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

He distinguished Taylor as an effective exclusion case: Louisiana’s opt-in requirement had resulted in virtually no women appearing on the venire. Here, women were present on Jackson County jury panels, though substantially underrepresented. He criticized the majority for calling this “exclusion” while offering no principled account of what degree of underrepresentation becomes unconstitutional. In his view, the Court either would ultimately require identical treatment of men and women or engage in an arbitrary constitutional numbers game.

Justice Rehnquist also warned that the decision would leave legislators and jury administrators uncertain about which exemptions remain permissible. To protect convictions from later challenge, States might abandon not only sex-based exemptions but also occupational and other broad exemptions, replacing them with burdensome case-by-case determinations. He viewed that result as administratively costly and unnecessary where the defendant had received a concededly fair trial before an impartial jury.

Finally, he maintained that the real interest at stake was the equal-protection right of excluded persons to participate in jury service, not the defendant’s right to an impartial tribunal. Because the composition of the particular petit jury need not track the community, he doubted that underrepresentation on a venire itself impaired impartiality. He considered direct injunctive relief for excluded groups a more rational means of protecting their rights than overturning criminal convictions.