suggesting that defendants who failed, after Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975), to object to the exclusion of women from juries must show cause for the failure
How later courts described this case
- suggesting that defendants who failed, after Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975), to object to the exclusion of women from juries must show cause for the failure
- no error in denying motion where publicity recited prior criminal record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam.
The motions for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis
are granted.
In each of these cases, the trial court denied a timely motion to quash the petit jury panel. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed on the basis of
State
v.
Duren,
556 S. W. 2d 11 (Mo. 1977).
State
v.
Lee,
556 S. W. 2d 25 (Mo. 1977) ;
State
v.
Minor,
556 S. W. 2d 35 (Mo.
1977); State
v.
Arrington,
559 S. W. 2d 749 (Mo.
1978); State
v.
Burnfin,
560 S. W. 2d 283 (Mo. App. 1977);
State
v.
Combs,
564 S. W. 2d 328 (Mo. App. 1978).
We reversed the decision below in
Duren
because of inconsistency with the principles enunciated in
Taylor
v.
*462
Louisiana,
419 U. S. 522 (1975).
Ante,
p. 357. The State of Missouri has urged that our decision in
Duren
not be applied retroactively to petitioners or appellants other than Duren himself. However, because that decision does not announce any “new standards” of constitutional law not evident from the decision in
Taylor
v.
Louisiana,
the considerations that have led us in other cases to depart from full retroactive application of constitutional holdings, see,
e. g., Stovall
v.
Denno,
388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967), are inapplicable to juries sworn after the decision in
Taylor
v.
Louisiana.
Compare
Daniel
v.
Louisiana,
420 U. S. 31 (1975), holding
Taylor
v.
Louisiana
inapplicable to cases in which the jury was sworn prior to the date of that decision.
We note that in any case in which a jury was sworn subsequent to
Taylor
v.
Louisiana
and the fair-cross-section claim based on exclusion of. women was rejected on direct review or in state collateral proceedings because of the defendant’s failure to assert the claim in timely fashion, relief is unavailable under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 unless the petitioner can show cause for having failed to raise his claim properly in the state courts. See
Wainwright
v.
Sykes,
433 U. S. 72 (1977).
The petitions for certiorari in Nos. 77-6066, 77-6068, 77-6701, and 77-7012 are granted. The judgments below in those cases, together with that in No. 77-6553, are vacated, and the cases are remanded for reconsideration in light of
Duren
v.
Missouri, ante,
p. 357.
So ordered.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Powell concurring in the judgments, see
ante,
p. 460.]
Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.