Taylor v. Louisiana
419 U.S. 522 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an impartial jury trial, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community, and a state law resulting in the systematic exclusion of women violates this right.
Facts:
- Billy J. Taylor was indicted for aggravated kidnaping in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
- Louisiana's Constitution and a state statute required women to file a written declaration of their desire to serve on a jury before they could be selected, while men were automatically eligible.
- In the judicial district where Taylor was to be tried, 53% of the persons eligible for jury service were female.
- As a result of the state's 'opt-in' system for women, no more than 10% of the persons on the jury wheel in St. Tammany Parish were women.
- The specific petit jury venire of 175 persons from which Taylor's jury was to be selected contained no women.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy J. Taylor was indicted for aggravated kidnaping in a Louisiana state trial court.
- Taylor filed a pretrial motion to quash the petit jury venire, claiming the systematic exclusion of women violated his constitutional rights.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- Following a trial, Taylor was convicted and sentenced to death.
- Taylor (as appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which (as appellee) affirmed the conviction and held that the jury-selection provisions were constitutional.
- Taylor appealed the decision of the state's highest court to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
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 a state jury-selection system that requires women to affirmatively register for jury service, resulting in their gross underrepresentation on jury venires, violate a criminal defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, a state jury-selection system that systematically excludes women from the venire violates a defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power and to make available the commonsense judgment of the community. This purpose is not served if large, distinctive groups, such as women, who constitute 53% of the eligible population in this district, are systematically excluded from the jury pool. Outdated rationales concerning a woman's distinctive role in society or administrative convenience are insufficient justifications to overcome a defendant's fundamental constitutional right to a proper jury.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the Louisiana jury-selection system does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court's prior decision in Hoyt v. Florida, which upheld a similar system, should not be overturned. The Sixth Amendment, as applied through Duncan v. Louisiana, is meant to prevent oppressive law enforcement and ensure fair trials, not to enforce a rigid 'fair-cross-section' model absent any showing of actual prejudice or bias against the defendant. The majority's reasoning about losing a 'flavor' or 'distinct quality' by excluding women is more mysticism than law and is not a sufficient basis to invalidate a state's long-standing practice. Constitutional adjudication should not be based on the Court's changing perception of societal norms.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly incorporates the fair-cross-section requirement into the Sixth Amendment's impartial jury guarantee, making it binding on the states. It effectively overrules the rationale of Hoyt v. Florida by shifting the legal analysis from a lenient 'rational basis' test under the Fourteenth Amendment to a more stringent standard under the Sixth Amendment. The case established that the systematic exclusion of a large and distinctive group like women from jury venires is unconstitutional, regardless of the defendant's gender or a lack of proven prejudice in the specific case. This ruling significantly altered jury selection practices nationwide, requiring states to dismantle systems that created barriers to jury service for women.
Unlock the full brief for Taylor v. Louisiana