Duren v. Missouri

1979-01-09

Headline: Ruling blocks Missouri’s automatic exemption for women and holds jury pools averaging under 15% women violate the right to a jury drawn from a fair community cross section, changing jury-selection practices.

Holding: Today the Court held that Missouri’s automatic exemption system producing jury venires averaging under 15% women violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments’ fair-cross-section requirement, so the state court’s judgment was reversed.

Real World Impact:

Requires states to justify broad jury exemptions that reduce women's representation.
May force changes to jury questionnaires and summons procedures.
Directly affects Missouri and other counties with similar exemption rules.

Topics: jury selection, women and jury service, fair cross section, jury exemptions

Summary

Background

A man charged with first-degree murder and robbery in Jackson County, Missouri challenged the county’s jury-selection system. The county mailed about 70,000 questionnaires to people on the voter list. The form included a paragraph labeled "TO WOMEN" telling any woman who did not want to serve to return the questionnaire indicating exemption, and women who failed to appear were treated as exempt. Census data showed 54% of adults were women, but only 26.7% of those summoned and 14.5% of those who appeared were women; the defendant’s 53-person panel had five women and the selected jury had twelve men.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the jury source was a fair cross section of the community. It applied the three-part test from Taylor: (1) women are a distinctive group, (2) they were underrepresented compared to the community, and (3) the underrepresentation resulted from systematic aspects of the selection process. The Court found the statistics established a prima facie violation and placed the burden on the State to show a significant justification. Missouri did not prove exemptions or other rules caused the discrepancy, and the State’s family-role argument was insufficient, so the Court reversed.

Real world impact

The decision requires states and counties to justify broad exemptions that reduce women’s representation and may force changes in jury questionnaires and summons practices. It directly affects Missouri and similar systems, and it returns the case to lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the Court mixed constitutional doctrines, warned that the 15% figure and limits on exemptions could impose heavy administrative burdens, and predicted states may need to change many exemption rules.