Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co.
66 S. Ct. 984, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3009, 328 U.S. 217 (1946)
Rule of Law:
The systematic and intentional exclusion of any substantial and identifiable group of citizens, such as daily wage earners, from federal jury lists violates the requirement that juries be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, regardless of the selecting officers' intentions or lack of proven prejudice.
Facts:
- A passenger named Thiel jumped out of a moving train operated by the Southern Pacific Company, alleging the company's agents knew he was mentally impaired and should have guarded him or stopped the train.
- The clerk of the court and the jury commissioner in the federal district court deliberately and intentionally excluded all persons who worked for a daily wage from the jury lists.
- This exclusion was based on the officials' experience that daily wage earners would likely claim financial hardship (earning $10/day versus $4/day juror pay) and would be excused by judges.
- The primary source for prospective jurors was the city directory, and individuals identified as longshoremen, iron craft, bricklayers, carpenters, and machinists were specifically omitted.
- Businessmen and their wives constituted at least 50% of the jury lists, while laborers paid weekly or monthly, and wives of daily wage earners, were included.
- California state law did not explicitly exclude daily wage earners from jury service, nor did it list general financial hardship as an automatic exemption.
Procedural Posture:
- Thiel filed a complaint against Southern Pacific Company in a California state court to recover damages.
- Southern Pacific Company removed the case to the Federal District Court at San Francisco based on diversity of citizenship.
- Thiel made several attempts to obtain a remand of the case to the state court, which were denied.
- Thiel was restrained from attempting to proceed further in the state court, a ruling affirmed on appeal by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Thiel demanded a jury trial, then moved to strike out the entire jury panel, alleging systematic selection of business executives and discrimination against employees and poorer classes.
- Following a hearing, the Federal District Court denied Thiel's motion to strike the jury panel.
- Thiel attempted to withdraw his demand for a jury trial, but Southern Pacific Company refused to consent.
- A jury of twelve was chosen, which Thiel challenged on the same grounds as the panel and upon the further ground that six jurors were affiliated with Southern Pacific Company; this challenge was denied by the District Court.
- The trial proceeded, and the jury returned a verdict for Southern Pacific Company.
- Thiel renewed his objections in a motion to set aside the verdict or, in the alternative, to grant a new trial, which the District Court denied.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in its entirety (149 F.2d 783).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether petitioner's motion to strike the jury panel was properly denied.
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 systematic exclusion of all daily wage earners from federal jury lists, based on an anticipated financial hardship for such individuals, violate the requirement that juries be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
Yes, the systematic exclusion of all daily wage earners from jury lists violates the requirement that juries be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The American tradition of trial by jury necessitates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community, meaning that prospective jurors must be selected without systematic and intentional exclusion of any substantial group, as recognized in Smith v. Texas and Glasser v. United States. Jury competence is an individual, not a group or class, matter, and disregarding this opens the door to class distinctions abhorrent to democratic ideals. The undisputed evidence showed the clerk and jury commissioner deliberately excluded all daily wage earners, a substantial portion of the community, based on anticipated financial hardship. This practice is not justified by federal or California state law, as a juror's pay period is irrelevant to their eligibility. While an individual daily wage earner may be excused for actual undue financial hardship, a blanket exclusion of an entire class is impermissible as it undermines the democratic nature of the jury system. The Court, exercising its supervisory power over federal courts, reversed the judgment, finding it unnecessary to determine if the petitioner was prejudiced or a member of the excluded class, or that the actual jury contained some laboring-class members, because the evil lies in the wholesale exclusion itself, requiring a new trial with a properly chosen jury panel.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, the practice of not calling for jury duty those dependent on a daily wage for their livelihood, adopted to relieve financial burden, does not require reversal of a judgment that is otherwise without flaw. The issue is one of judicial administration, not a constitutional violation, and there was no suggestion of property prejudice or designed economic bias in this specific case. The challenged practice was a long-standing one, intended to relieve economically vulnerable individuals from the hardship of low jury pay. Congress has granted broad discretion to trial courts in jury selection, often adopting state qualifications and exemptions, which frequently include exclusions for various occupations for reasons of public interest or convenience. Since weekly/monthly wage earners and wives of daily wage earners were included, the practice was not a systematic discrimination against wage earners as a class but an anticipatory excuse for hardship. It is an 'unwarranted assumption' that daily wage earners hold a distinct social or economic outlook compared to other workers. The dissent argues that addressing systemic issues in jury selection is better suited for comprehensive legislative and administrative reform, such as through the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, rather than overturning a judgment that is 'free from intrinsic infirmity' by judicial adjudication.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidified the principle that federal juries must reflect a fair cross-section of the community, extending the prohibition against systematic exclusion beyond racial or religious grounds to socioeconomic classes. It established that even well-intentioned administrative practices aimed at alleviating juror hardship cannot justify the blanket removal of an entire, substantial group. The ruling requires judicial officers to consider potential jurors individually for hardship rather than making categorical exclusions, thereby preventing the jury system from becoming an instrument dominated by any particular economic or social stratum. This decision reinforced the democratic ideals underpinning the jury system and set a higher bar for ensuring broad representativeness in federal jury pools, influencing subsequent reforms in jury selection practices nationwide.
