Lee v. Missouri

Background

Several people convicted in Missouri challenged their jury panels, saying women had been improperly excluded. Lower courts denied timely challenges and affirmed convictions based on earlier Missouri decisions. The State asked that the Court not apply the Court’s earlier Duren decision to other defendants.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Court’s Duren decision should be treated as a new rule or simply as applying principles already set out in an earlier case, Taylor v. Louisiana. The Court said Duren did not announce a new constitutional standard beyond Taylor, so the reasons used in other cases to limit retroactive effect do not apply to juries sworn after Taylor. The opinion distinguishes earlier holdings that refused to apply Taylor to juries sworn before that date. The Court also noted that defendants who failed to raise a fair-cross-section claim in state court may not get federal habeas relief unless they can show a valid reason for the delay.

Real world impact

The Court granted review, vacated convictions in several Missouri cases, and sent them back for reconsideration under Duren. People whose juries were selected after Taylor may get their jury-selection claims renewed in state court. Defendants who did not raise the issue in state proceedings will face the ordinary federal habeas rule requiring a showing of cause to obtain relief.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes that one Justice (Powell) joined a separate opinion concurring in the judgments, and that Justice Rehnquist dissented from the per curiam order.