Jurisdictional Statement — Taylor v. Louisiana

SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

STATE OF LOUISIANA :

: DOCKET NO.:

VERSUS

:

FILED:

BILLY J. TAYLOR :

(a)

(b)

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

State of Louisiana v. Billy J. Taylor, 282 So. 2d

491 (1973).

(i) Appeal from the final judgment of the Supreme

Court of the State of Louisiana affirming the

conviction and sentence to life imprisonment

of Billy J. Taylor for the crime of aggravated

kidnappying (LSA°R.S. 14:44).

(ii) Date of original judgment -- January 15, 1973.

Date of judgment on rehearing -- August 20, 1973.

Date of order refusing second application for

rehearing -- September 6, 1973.

Date of entry of judgment -- September 5, 1973.

Date notice of appeal filed -- November 8, 1973.

(iii) Jurisdiction of this appeal is conferred by 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (2).

(iv) Cases sustaining jurisdiction -- Peters v. Kiff,

407 U.S. 493, 92 S. Ct. 2163, 33 L.

. ;

Carter v. Jury Com'r, 396 U.S. 320 , 90 S. Ct.

5i8, 24 L. Bd. 20549; Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S.

128, 61 S.Ct. 164, 85 L. Bd. 84; Glasser v. United

States 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 315 os 60;

hiel v. Southern Seaere 328 U.S. 217, 66 S.Ct.

L. Ed. A.L.R. 1412; Williams

Vv. Florida, 399 U.S. ‘28, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 26 L. Ed

24446; Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88

g. Gs. Trea 35 L. Bd. 2d 770; Ballard v. United

States, 329 U.S. 187, 67 S. Ct. . . 81;

Alexander v. Louisiana, 31 L. Ed. 24 536.

(v) West's LSA.Code of Criminal Procedure, Article

4021; Vol. 1, page 324: "A woman shall not

(c)

(a)

be selected for jury service unless she has

previously filed with the Clerk of Court of

the Parish in which she resides a written decla-

ration of her desire to be subject to jury ser-

vice."

West's LSA Constitution, Article 7, Section 4l,

Vol. 2, page 382: "The Legislature shall pro-

vide for the election and drawing of competent

and intelligent jurors for the trial of civil

and criminal cases; provided, however, that

no woman shall be drawn for jury service unless

she shall have previously filed with the Clerk

of the District Court a written declaration of

her desire to be subject to such service. All

cases in which the punishment may not be at

hard labor shall be tried by a jury of five,

all of whom must concur to render a verdict;

cases, in which the punishment is necessarily

at hard labor, by a jury of twelve, nine of

whom must concur to render a verdict; cases in

which the punishment may be capital, by a jury

of twelve, all of whom must concur to render

a verdict."

The question presented by the appeal is:

1) Whether Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 402 and Louisiana Constitution Article

7, Section 41, which exempt women from jury

service violates the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

2) Has appellant been deprived of a fair trial

within the guarantees of the Sixth and Four-

teenth Amendments to the United States Con-

stitution by reason of the systematic exclusion

of women from the jury (as shown by the all-male

jury venire list) under the provisions of Louisi-~

ana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 402 and

Louisiana Constitution Article 7, Section 41?

The appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping

(which included aggravated rape as part of the evidence

introduced) by an all male jury selected from an all

male jury venire. He was initially sentenced to death,

but ultimately to life imprisonment. A motion to

quash the jury venire was initially filed prior

to the commencement of trial on the grounds that

the systematic exclusion of women from the jury

under the provisions of Louisiana Code of Criminal

Procedure Article 402 and Louisiana Constitution

Article 7, Section 41 w&s violative of the United

States Constitutional guarantees of a fair trial

and due process. This motion to quash was over-

ruled by the Trial Judge. On appeal to the Louisi-

ana Supreme Court the same objection was urged by

assignment of error and argument in brief. The

Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction

but Justice Barham in a dissenting opinion agreed

that the Louisiana Statutory and Constitutional

provisions exempting women from jury service violates

the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the United

States Constitution. In appellant's first application

for rehearing the question was againurged but in

the Court's opinion on rehearing was disregarded

except by Justice Barham who adhered to his original

dissent.

It is submitted that the question of the constitutionality

of a state law which exempts women from jury service

arising as it does in a capital case, is obviously a

substantial federal enact The question is ripe

for a final determination by the United States Supreme

Court. In the instant case the question must be

answered in order to dispose of the appeal. It cannot

be disposed of on other grounds as in Alexander v.

Louisiana, cited infra.

| {) WO rvn thin, Mag

) Attorney for Appellant

| P.O. Box 1029

Covington, Louisiana 70433

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, William McM. King, attorney of record, for

Billy J. Taylor, appellant herein, depose and say that

on the 12th day of November, 1973, I served a copy of

the foregoing Jurisdictional Statement, on the District

Attorney for the Parish of St. Tammany, W. W. Erwin,

appellee herein, by mailing same herein to his office

in the courthouse, Covington, Louisiana, and to William

J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana

at his office in the Capitol Building, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana.

All parties required to be served have been served.

4) de

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED

before me this 12th day

of November, 1973.

NO

Fi ‘ 4 Be —