# Jurisdictional Statement — Taylor v. Louisiana > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0136%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 419 U.S. 522 ## Text 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 — --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0136%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.