Commonwealth v. Maxwell
271 Pa. 378, 114 A. 825, 16 A.L.R. 1134 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state constitutional provision preserving the right to trial by jury "as heretofore" does not fix juror qualifications to a static, historical standard but preserves the essential elements of a jury trial, leaving the legislature free to define juror qualifications. A statute defining juror eligibility by reference to a general class, such as "qualified electors," is prospective in nature and automatically includes new groups who subsequently gain the status of that class.
Facts:
- The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, granting women the right to vote.
- As a result of the 19th Amendment, women in Pennsylvania became "qualified electors."
- A Pennsylvania statute, the Act of April 10, 1867, required jury commissioners to select jurors "from the whole qualified electors of the respective county."
- A grand jury was convened in Lancaster County, and at least one woman served as a member.
- This grand jury returned an indictment charging the defendants with murder.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury, which included a female member, indicted the defendants for murder in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Lancaster County, a trial court.
- The defendants filed a motion to quash the indictment, arguing the grand jury was illegally constituted because a woman served on it.
- The Court of Oyer and Terminer granted the defendants' motion and quashed the indictment.
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Pennsylvania constitutional provision that "Trial by jury shall be as heretofore" prevent women from serving as jurors after the 19th Amendment made them "qualified electors" under a state statute that draws jurors from that class?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Schaffer
No. The Pennsylvania constitutional provision that trial by jury shall be 'as heretofore' does not prevent women from serving as jurors because the phrase refers to the fundamental right and method of a jury trial, not to the specific qualifications of jurors, which have always been a matter of legislative control. The controlling statute requires jurors to be selected from the class of 'qualified electors,' and when the 19th Amendment placed women in that class, they automatically became eligible for jury service. Historical analysis reveals that juror qualifications in Pennsylvania have consistently been defined and modified by statute, not fixed by common law. The constitutional guarantee of a jury trial 'as heretofore' preserves essential features like a 12-person jury and unanimity, but does not freeze juror eligibility requirements at a particular point in history. The Act of 1867, which uses the general term 'qualified electors,' is prospective in nature and applies to new classes of people who meet that description over time. Therefore, upon the ratification of the 19th Amendment, women became qualified electors and were immediately eligible for jury service under the existing statute without the need for new legislation.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its dynamic interpretation of constitutional language, preventing historical practices from rigidly constraining modern legal standards. It established that constitutional guarantees of a jury trial are not static and do not bar legislatures from updating juror qualifications to reflect societal changes. By holding that a general statutory requirement for jurors (e.g., being an elector) automatically incorporates newly enfranchised groups, the court facilitated the swift integration of women into jury service following suffrage. This precedent set a framework for interpreting facially neutral statutes in light of subsequent constitutional amendments that expand civil rights.
