# Petition — Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services-Probation

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0468%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 485 U.S. 976

## Text

a

RECEIVED |
JAN 22 1979
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT, U.S.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No.
78-6077
LAVANCE C. JONES,
Petitioner,
-Vs*=
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
LAVANCE C. JONES,
Petitioner,

JOE F. WILLERTH

COCHRAN, KRAMER, KAPKE § WILLERTH
317 West Kansas Avenue

P.O. Box 27

Independence, Missouri 64051
(816) 833-1500

Counsel for Petitioner

eo

wepae OC Citations . . «+22 ese
Opinion Below... .+«-e«-eceeee
Jurisdiction ..«ss-esecceess
Question Presented .....ee-.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Statement .. «© «ee se ee ee © ©
How Federal Questions ave Presented
Reasons for Granting the Writ...
Comclusiqm «2 es eee eee ee

Appendix ey ee ee ee oe a

Page
1 CASES:
2
2
2
3
3
3
5 STATUTES:
9
10

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).

Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961).
$tate v. Billy Duren, 556 S.W. 2d 11 (Mo.banc 1977),

State v. Gethers, 227 S.E. 2d 832 (Ga.App. 1976).

Robinson v. Kimbrough, 540 F. 2d 1264 (Sth Cir. 1976).

Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution
Article I, Sec. 22(b), Missouri Constitution
Sec. 497.130, Revised Statutes of Missouri
New York Judiciary Law Sec. 542 (7)

Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. Sec. 51-218, -219

Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 59-112(6)

La. Stat. Ann. Sec. 13-3055

Okla. Stat. Ann. Title 38, Sec. 28

R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. Sec. 9-9-11

Utah Code Ann. Sec. 78-46-10(14)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT

Petitioner, Lavance C. Jones, prays that a Writ of Certiorari
issue to review the judgment and opinion of the Missouri Court of

Appeals entered in the above~entitled case on August 28, 1978.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion and decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals is
reported at 571 S.W. 2d 741. A copy of the opinion appears in
Appendix A attached hereto,

JURISDICTION

The opinionsand judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals was
entered on August 28, 1978. Thereafter, a motion for rehearing was
filed on September 12, 1978. See Missouri Rules of Court 84.17.

The motion was overruled October 2, 1978. An application to trans-
fer the cause to the Missouri Supreme Court was filed October 16,
1978. Missouri Rule of Court 83.03. On November 6, 1978 said ap-
plication to transfer was denied by the Missouri Supreme Court, making
the opinion of the Court of Appeals the final judgment of the highest
court in the State of Missouri.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28, United

States Code, Section 1257 (3).

QUESTION PRESENTED

WHETHER MISSOURI'S STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME FOR
THE SELECTION OF PETIT JURORS -= WHICH GRANTS WOMEN AN AUTOMATIC
EXEMPTION BASED SOLELY ON SEX == DENIED PETITIONER HIS RIGHT TO

+e.

TRIAL BY JURY AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS MANDATED AND INTERPRETED
BY THIS COURT'S OPINION IN TAYLOR vs. LOUISIANA, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This case involves the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution:

Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, ...."

Fourteenth Amendment

" . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

STATEMENT

Petitioner, Lavance C. Jones, was charged by indictment with
the crimes of Murder, Second Degree (Sec. 559.020 R.S.Mo.) and
Robbery in the First Degree (Sec. 560.120). The jury trial was
held in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court (Sprinkié J.) in
Kansas City, Missouri. Verdicts of guilt were returned and petitioner
was sentenced to serve a life term on the charge of Second Degree
Murder and a consecutive term of twenty-five years on the charge

of Robbery, First Degree in che Missouri Division of Corrections.

HOW FEDERAL SUES TION

Seal

1. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to quash the
jury panel on the basis that women were systematically excluded

from jury service. In support of this motion, petitioner introduced

into evidence a stipulation of facts entered into by both the de-
fense and the State. Briefly, the stipulation outlined the jury
selection system used in Jackson County, Missouri, which is as
follows: potential jurors are randomly selected from the Jackson
County voter registration lists; these persons are sent question-
naires to determine their eligibility for jury service. By statute,

this questionnaire prominently states:

TO WOMEN:

The Constitution permits women to elect to
serve or not to serve as jurywomen. Any woman
who elects not to serve will fill out this para-
graph and mail this questionnaire to the jury
commissioner at once. It will not be necessary
to answer the-other questions.

I elect not to perform jury service.

This paragraph is immediately followed by a signature line. Those
questionnaires returned showing no exemption were placed in the
jury wheel. Also stipulated to was the fact that the 1976 jury
wheel was 29.1% female. Each week, names are randomly selected for
jury service; these persons are then sent a summons for jury ser-
vice. This summons reads on its reverse side:

Women, if you do not wish to serve, return this summons

to the Judge named on the reverse side as quickly as pos-

sible.
Petitioner introduced statistics relating to the number of jurors
summoned, and those actually appearing for service, during the
months of January through June, 1976. Additionally, the Stipulation
showed that of 30,165 women sent questionnaires (for the 1976
jury wheel), fully 21,884 (72.6%) indicated an unwillingness to
serve as jurors by signing the line under the last paragraph of the
questionnaire, which informed them of their ability to refuse to
serve because of their sex. Lastly, census evidence was introduced
showing Jackson County to be 54% female. The stipulation further
indicated that the person summoned for jury duty in the year 1977

were selected in the same manner as described earlier in the stipulation.

An example of the stipulation and its supporting documents is *
attached hereto as Appendix B and made a part hereof by reference.
At the close of Petitioner's presentation of evidence on the
Motion, the State offered no evidence and the Motion was overruled.
2. Subsequent to his trial, petitioner filed a timely motion
for new trial alleging the instant allegation. A timely appeal was
then prosecuted to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City
District, which affirmed petitioner's conviction by opinion dated
August 28, 1978... Motion for rehearing was overruled October 25
1978. Application to transfer the cause to the Missouri Supreme
Court was denied November 6, 1978. The issue raised herein was
raised and argued before the trial court and the Missouri Court of

Appeals, whose opinion has now become the final judgment of the

Missouri Supreme Court with the denial of the application to transfer.

Missouri Rule of Court 83.03.

REASONS FOR GRANTING
THE WRIT

The opinion and decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in
the instant case is in direct conflict with past decision of this
Court, various federal courts of appeals and several state high
courts. Specifically, Petitioner contends the instant opinion

is in conflict with Taylor vs Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) and

thus, cannot stand. Taylor held Article VII, Section 41 of the
Louisiana Constitution and Article 402 of the Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure (since repealed) violative of Taylor's due
process rights guaranteed by the XIV Amendment to the United
States Constitution.

The Louisiana law is reproduced here for the convenience
of the Court:

Article VII, Louisiana Constitution

Sec. 41. Selection of jurors; women jurors; trial by
judge; trial by jury.

The Legislature shall provide for the selection

and drawing of competent and intelligent jurors for

the trial of civil and criminal cases; provided, how-
ever, that no woman shall be drawn for jury service
unless she shall haveppreviously 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, until other-
wise provided by law, be tried by the judge without

a jury. Cases, in which the punishment may 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.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 402. Service of women as jurors.
A woman shall not be selected for jury service
unless she has previously filed with the clerk of
court of the parish in which she resides a written
declaration of her desire to be subject to jury ser-
vice.
The United States Supreme Court in Taylor re-examined the
question of automatic exclusion of women from the juries previously

decided by that Court in Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 7 L.Ed.2d

118, 82 S.Ct. 159 (1961) and they reached a different result.
Accordingly, the Court stated:
"Accepting as we do however, the view that the
VI Amendment affords the Defendant in a criminal trial
the opportunity to have the jury drawn from venires
representative of the community, we think it is no

longer tenable to hold that women as a class may be

a

excluded or given automatic exemptions based solely
on sex if the consequences are that criminal jury
venires are almost totally male."

(42 LEd.2d 690 at 702) (emphasis added)

The question presented herein then whether Missouri offers

an “automatic exemption based solely on sex" and if, "the conse-
quences are that criminal jury venires are almost totally male."

The Missouri Constitution, Article I, Section 22(b) states:

"No citizen shall be disqualified from jury service because of

sex, but the court shall excuse any woman who requests exemption
therefrom before being sworn as a juror." This Article is imple-

mented by Section 497.130, Missouri Revised Statutes (1974), which

section allows women to "elect to serve or not to serve as jury
women,"

When placed side by side and examined, the Missouri system
and the Louisiana system (later changed) both offer an absolute

exemption to jury service based strictly upon gender. The dif-

ference being only that in Louisiana the woman must affirmatively

opt for service while her Missouri sister must affirmatively choose

not to serve.

The appellant's argument is much better stated by the United

States Supreme Court's final paragraph in the Taylor opinion:
". . . but the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or
venires from which juries are drawn must not system-
atically exclude distinctive groups in the community
and thereby fail to be reasonable representative

thereof."

Petitioner concludes that "(t)he States remain free to pre-

scribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and to provide

reasonable exemptions . .. "Taylor v. Louisiana, at 538.

Petitioner, however, does not believe that a blanket exemption for

women is a reasonable exemption. Indeed, as pointed by Mr. Justice

Seiler in his dissenting opinion in State v. Billy Duren, 558
S.W. 2d 11, 24, n.4 (1977):
"The federal court (the United States District

of society. The Missovri jury selection system is of such a breed:
Petitioner's panel (10%) women cannot be considered as representative

of society.
Court for the Western District of Missouri) provides
F Accordingly, a Writ of Certiorari should issue to review
for excuse on request by a woman charged with care of

‘ mise sachbek eloudaik sealene’e hatet the opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court affirming Petitioner's
minor ren ut adequ .

, conviction.
Petitioner maintains that this is a reasonable exemption
for women and would not serve to deny an accused his constitutional CONCLUSION
right to a representative jury: in the federal court in Kansas WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to
City, 53% of the persons on jury wheel are women and 39.8) of the issue a Writ of Certiorari to the Missouri Supreme Court.

actual jurors chosen were women. 556 S.W.2d at 24. This data

can be contrasted with the Missouri courts: 29% of the persons

on the wheel are women; seldom over 15% of the persons appearing yen ete Petitioner

for jury service are women; and often, as in the case~at~-bar, :

juries are all male. / £ . Wiladt

- WILLERTH
Since Taylor, several states have been faced with challenges 3UY/West Kansas Avenue
PO. Box 27
to exemptions to women. All, except Missouri, have changed the Independence, Missouri 64051
833-1500

exemption by either statute or court decision, see, e.g. State

, Counsel for Petitioner
v. Gethers, 227 S.E.2d 832 (Ga.App.1976); Robinson v. Kimbrough,

540 F.2d 1264 (Sth Cir. 1976); New York Judiciary Law 549 (7);

Conn. Gen.Stat.Rev. Sec. 51-218, 219; Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 59-112(6); uN
A copy of the above and foregoing was mailed on this 177

La.Stat.Ann. Sec. 13-3055; Okla.Stat.Ann. Title 38 Sec. 28; Rhode
day of TANLARY , 197 7 to Attorney General John

Island Gen.Laws Ann. Sec. 9=-9-11; Utah Code Ann. Sec. 78-46-10(14).

Ashcroft, Office-of the Attorney General, Supreme Court Building,
Missouri remains the only state with an automatic exemption for

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101,
women. Further, this exemption causes gross underrepresentation

of women on jury panels. (See attached exhibits as to the women £ ) yj

appearing for jury service). The instant opinion cannot stand as ‘ LERTH
a correct interpretation of this Court's opinion in Taylor. Unlike

the Missouri Supreme Court, Petitioner does not believe Taylor

stands for the proposition that any percentages of women on jury

panels, higher than those found in Taylor, is constitutionally

permissible; instead Taylor condemns jury merchanisms which deny an

accused his right to a jury drawn from a reasonable cross-section

APPENDIX A

OPINION RENDERED BY THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, ON AUGUST 28, 1978.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX A IS THE OPINION OF THE COURT
IN STATE V. JONES AND CAN BE FOUND AT
571 S.W. 2d 741. IT HAS NOT BEEN FILMED HERE.

STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PARTIES AND DOCUMENTS

-10- :

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI,

LAVANCE JONES,

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRQUIT

Plaintiff,
Case No. C-49832
Criminal ''B"

Defendant.

§ Sew
q és

4
8

COME NOW the defendant, LaVance Jones, by counsel Joe F. Willerth,

and the state, by counsel, James Humphrey, assistant prosecuting attomey and

stipulate and agree as follows:

1. All persons summoned for jury duty in the year 1976, including

the persons summoned as prospective jurors in this case, were selected from

a jury whee] created in the following manner:

Under the direction of the Circuit Court Administrator and
the Jury Cormissioner, the Department of Court Corputer
Services created a computer data file containing the name,
address, sex and ward/precinct number of every fourth
registered voter in Jackson County, Missouri, in the records
of the Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners and the
Independence Board of Election Commissioners. An Official
Notice and Questionnaire in the form prescribed by Section 497.130
of the Missouri Revised Statutes was miled to each perso
whose name was selected from the aforesaid list of registered
voters.

Completed questionnaires were received in retum mail by
employees of the Department of Court Computer Services.

The questionnaires were scrutinized to determine if any of the
responses shown on the questionnaire indicated that that
person was entitled to exemption or to be excused from jury
duty. The names of those persons who appeared to be entitled
to exemption or to be excused from jury duty were then
removed fram the role of those persons who were sent ques-
tionnaires. The list of remaining names constitutes the

jury wheel for 1976.

Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of a “Sumary of ,
Questionnaire Processing for the 1976 Jury Wheel" prepared

by Robert J. Kramer, Director of Computer Services, which

is a summary of the number of questionnaires processed in

the compilation of the 1976 Jury Wheel for Jackson County,
and said Exhibit "A" may bs admitted in evidence in this case.

Attached hereto as Fxhibit "B" is a copy of a merorandm
showing the number of males whose names are included in the
1976 Jury Wheel for Jackson County and the number of females
whose names are included in the 1976 Jury Wheel for Jackson
County. Exhibit "B" and the information shown in that exhibit
may be admitted in evidence in this case.

2. Prospective jurors are sumoned as follows:

a.

Prior to the week for which potential jurors are to be sumonsd,
the presiding judge and the jury carmmissioner determine the
nunber to be summoned. This number is provided to the Department
of Court Computer Services which uses a computer programed to

ee

randomly select the designated number of potential jurcs from
the 1976 Jury Wheel. The persons so selected are mailed a
jury summons identical to the form of summons attached and
——— Exhibit "'C', which exhibit is hereby incorporated by
Teference.

b. Attached Exhibit "D' (pages 1 through 7), which exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference, is an analysis of the sex -
and service of potential jurors summoned for each jury week
in 1976 through the week of July 26, 1976. The figures
contained in Exhibit "D' may be admitted in evidence in this
case.

3. On February 4, 1976, the Office of the Public Defender for the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit was authorized to obtain from the Jackson County
Circuit Court Adninistrator all "Official Notice and Questionnaire" forms which
were ieceived, processed and used to compile the 1976 Jury Wheel for Jackson
County. On February 11, 1976, the Office of the Public Defender received all
such questionnaires from the Office of the Circuit Court Administrator.

The questionnaires were sorted to separate those sent to males from
those sent to females. Questionnaires sent to females were sorted to determine
the following information and counted in each category thereby obtaining the

following totals:
Total Number of
Category Questionnaires

Information on the face of the
questionnaire showing that the
woman was no longer a resident

of Jackson County, Missouri 817
Female government employees who indi-

cated they would not serve 21
Female professionak, including clergy,

who indicated they would not serve 93

Females who indicated prior to jury
service on the questionnaire (Line 12)

but indicated they were willing to serve 132
Females who indicated prior jury service

but were unwilling to serve 20
Female teachers who indicated they would

not serve 437
Questionnaires indicating that the

eddressee was in a nursing home "$50

Questionnaires indicating in Line 11 that

the woman was physically unable to serve

or some other wr‘tten indication of

physical infirmity such as loss of hear-

ing, or who indicated they were ineligible

under the statutes 1,106

Questionnaires showing that the woman was

over 6S years of age and with no

affirmative indication of willingness

to serve 2,059

Questionnaires showing that the woman was

under 21 years of age ist
Questionnaires returned with the notation
that the addressee was deceased 53

Questionnaires indicating that the woman
declined to serve for no other apparent
Teason than: female exemption 21, 884

Questionnaires with affirmative indi-
cations that the woman would serve, fr
without any indication of refusal 3,342

4, The Court may take julicial notice of the Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, statistics contained in attached Exhibit "E", which exhibit

is hereby incorporated by reference, entitled "General Population Characteristics."
5. That the persons summoned for jury duty in the year 1977 including
the persons summoned as prospective jurors in this case were selected in the
manner described in paragraph one of this stipulation.

Date WILLYAM WELGT

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Jackson County Courthouse

415 East 12th Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ Joe F, Willerth

Date « WILLERTH

317 West Kansas Avenue

P. 0. Box 27

Independence, Missouri 64051
833-1500

Counsel for Defendant

was

CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, Missouri
415 EAST 12TH STREET
KANS¢S CITY, MISSOURI 64106

AUSTIN E. VAN BUSKIRK
COURT ADMINISTRATOR

December 29, 1975

To: Austin E. Van Buskirk
Court Administrator

Re: 1976 Jury Wheel

Attached is the summary of questionnaire
the 1976 jury wheel. As

tain a total of 27,868 names.
of the attached summary, please let’ me:know.

F dis

o

“ , .
a
« /%,' ‘om 2) Ys
vA * a VK fy Pte
r Ab , Lé¢z ve * at <7

obert’ J. Kramer

ROBERT J. KRAMER

616-661.3668

processing for
you can see, the new wheel will con-

If you need further explanation

Director of Computer Services

RIK:bf

* me: John Fitzgerald

OIRECTOR OF COMPUTER SERVICES

Exhibit

wan

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE PROCESSING |
FOR THE 1976 JURY WHEEL P|
j MEMORANDUM

Approximate Registered Voters / - 260,828 ; June 15, 1976
TO: Thomas M. Larson
Questionnaires Mailed (1/4 voter rolls) 65,207 — pre
: arlie Rogers
Deceased and/or Non-Deliverable 2,451 :
Ineligible/Elected Not To Serve 34,888 RE: Jury Wheel Count
; Total Records Removed From File 37,339
. I counted the males and females on the Jackson County
1976 Jury Wheel 27,868 | Jury Wheel List for 1976, and obtained the following results:
. Males 19,755
, Females 8,099
Changes to File } Total 27,854
gures out to slightly less than 29.1% of the persons
Address Changes ; 2,141 on the jury wheel list who are female.
Total Changes * 2,308 I spent’ a total of 13 hours on this project.

Total Questionnaires Returned S). 57,457 (Lave

Charles M. Rogers

Number of Questionnaires Not Returned poe FY t- 1) Certified Law Intern

Exhibit
"Bp"

ews eae one we ss te)

ww | IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

'

Summons for Jury Service
ef: ‘
oop y
we
Oo To
Li ;
L oh

4. . YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear before the Honorable

PAUL Es VAROEMAN , Judge of DIVISION 93 of the
| Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri IN KANSAS

CITY AT 12TH & OAK IN RM 301, ON MONDAY THE 15

~ 8 Of NOVEMBERs 1976 AT 8215 o'clock AM to serve as a

juror until discharged.

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR YOU MAY BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

BRING THIS SUMMONS WITH YOU.
PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE.
(OVER)

JOHN R. FITZGERALD !

Jury Commissioner

ri ma
a —
NOVEMBER apa

PLEASE BRING THIS ENTIRE CARD WITH
YOU WHEN YOU APPEAR AT THE JURY
ASSEMBLY ROOM. 3

-—--—

a et ee ome emer emer me Ne ee eee ee es ees ee ee ee eee

INSTRUCTIONS

Please note the Judge and location on the front side of this card. You
must report to him on the day and at the time specified.

No male juror shall be excused from service except for sufficiently
valid reasons to be APPROVED BY THE JUDGE or upon PERSONAL
APPEARANCE BEFORE SAID JUDGE AS SHOWN ON THE FRONT OF
THIS CARD. Applications for excuses must be presented to said Judge
on or before 12 0’clock noon on the Thursday preceeding the date which
you are to appear as shown on the reverse side.

A physically disabled juror must show that to appear and serve would

endanger his health. Such proof must be in the form of a doctor's certificate

and be presented to the Judge the same as other applications.

Women , if you do not wish to serve, return this summons to the Judge
named on the reverse side as quickly as possible.

Men , if you are over 65 years of age and do not wish to serve, return this
summons to the Judge named on the reverse side the same as other appili-

‘cations, before 12 noon Thursday preceeding your date of service. Give

your date of birth in your request.

Non-Kesidents , if you are no longer a resident of Jackson County,
Missouri, you are not eligible for jury service. Please let us know you have
moved by returning this summons promptly giving your present address.

All persons duly summoned by mail as jurors may be attached for non-
appearance and fined by the court for contempt.

We regret that we are unable to furnish parking for jurors. *

Please, bring this Summons with you when you appear at the Jury

Assembly Roam. JURY COMSSR: bSDo/ JURY COMssR: 6500/9/75

TABLE F JURORS SUMMONED IN JACKSON COUNTY FOR
SERVICE IN KANSAS CITY - JANUARY, 1976

EXCUSED OR ae:
WEEK JURORS SUMMONED DECEASED DEFERRED ABSENT APPEARED FOR SERVICE
1/5/76 Male 247 (75.5%) 70 19 6 152 (92.7%)
Female 80 (24.5%) 49 2 oe 12 ( 7.3%)
Total 327 i. ae
1/12/76Male © 260 (76.5%) 64 25 24 147 -oe
Female 80 (23.5%) 48 1 i2 19 (11.48)
Total 340 1 76 36 166
1/19/74@Male 245 (76.3%) 71 18 14 142 (87.1%)
* Female _76 (23.7%) 45 0 10 21 (12.9%)
321 Tié6 Ts 4 163"
1/26/76Male 234 (72.0$) 85 12 15 122 (81.9%)
Female 91 (28.0%) 44 2 18 27 (18.1%)
Total 325 Tz> 17 33 149
TOTALS
FOR Male 986 (75.1%) 290° 74 $9 563 (87.7%)
~_ JANUARY Female327 (24.9%) 186 5 57 79 (12.3%)
1976 Total 4° 373 t76- 79 116

WEEK OF

2/2/76

2/17/76

2/23/76

TOTALS
FOR
FEBRUARY
1976

Male
Female

Male
Female
Total

Male
Female
Total

Male
Female
Total

Male
Female
Total

JURORS SUMMONED

224
92
316

' 822

339
1,161

TABLE OF JURORS SUMMONED IN JACKSON COUNTY FOR
SERVICE IN KANSAS CITY - FEBRUARY, 1976

79.183
29.1%)

(73.6%)
(26.48)

(67.1%)
(32.9%)

33-3

(70.8%)
(29.2%)

EXCUSED

DECEASED

64
46
110

DEFERRED

ABSENT .

APPEARED FOR

SERVICE
li (79.7%)
30 (20.3%)
“Tas
136 (82. 9%)
28 = (17.18)
T64q
68 (81.0%)
16 (19.08)
BF
150 (84.7%)
27s (15.38)
177
472 (82.4)
101 (17.6%)
373

—~SS ee 7 oe

Week

Beginning:

March l,
1976.

March 15 +

‘arch 29,

Total for
Weeks of

March, 1976.

TABULATION OF DATA OBTAINED FROM LISTS OF JURORS SUMMONED FOR MARCH, 1976.
Jurors . Not Appeared (%)
Summoned (%) Excused Deferred Appearing For Service : f

Female 90 (72.0%) 56 = 13 19 (13.13%)
Male 231 (28.0%) 64 21 20. .» 126 (86.93)
Total 321 120 23 33 145°

Female 107 (31.9%) 64 2 9 32 (21.89)
Male 228 (68.1%) 67 37 9 115 (78.2 9
Total 335 131 39 18 147

Female 107 (31.2%) 62 - 17 25 (15.28)
Male 228 (68.83%) 58 23 15 140 (84.83)
Total 343 120 26 32 165

Female 50 (26.0%) 27 1 8 14 (15.6%)
Male 142 (74.0%) 40 17 9 76 (84.8%)
Total 192 67 18 17 90

Female 99 (28.6%) 65 3 11 20 (12.53,
Male 247 (71.4%) 70 27 10 140 (87.5%)
Total 346 135 30 21 160

Female 453 (29.5%) 274 ll 58 110 (17.0%)
Male 1,084 (70.5%) 299 125 63 597 (83.0%)
TOTAL 1,537 573 136 121 707

week of

4/5/76

4/12/76

4/19/76

4/26/76

TOTALS
FOR

APRIL, 1976

Male
Female
Total

Male
Female
Total

Male
Female
Total

Male
Female

Total

Male
Female

* Total

TABLE OF JURORS SUMMONED FOR DUTY IN KANSAS CITY, APRIL, 1976.

Summoned

248
101
349

858
338
1196

(71.1
(28.9%)

Excused

65
$1

116

412

Deferred

~

_ Not Appearing

i
29

Appeared For Service

38
174

(23:93)

(83.1%)
(16.9%)

TABLE OF JURORS SUMMONED FOR DUTY IN KANSAS CITY, MAY, 1976

Week of Summoned ($) Excused Ne ferred Not Appearing Appeared for Service

5/3/76 Male 240 (72.7%) 60 \ ae ’ 15 148 SeaETS:
Female 90 (27.3%) 48 : _ 18 22 (12.9%
Total 330 . 108 19 33 170

~ 5/10/76 Male 236 (72.7%) 52 27 12 145 (89.0%)

Female 89 (27.3%) 56 0 15 18 (11.0%)
Total 325 .108 27 27 163

5/17/76 Male 231 (72.6%) 56 29 12 134 (86.5%)
Female 87 (27.4%) 52 2 12 21 (13.5%)
Total 318 . 108 31 24 1$5

5/24/76 Male 239 (74.5%) 53 26 13 147 (85.5%)
Female 82 (25.5%) 43 1 13 25 (14.5%)
Total 321 96 27 26 172

Totals for
May, 1976 Male 946 (73.3%) 221 99 52 574 (87.0%
Female 348 (26.7%) 199 2 5 58 86 (13.0%
/ Total 1,294 420 104 110 660

TABLE OF JURORS SUMMONED FOR DUTY IN KANSAS CITY, JUNE, 1976

Week of Summoned (%) Excused Deferred Not Appearing Appeared for Service

6/1/76 Male 217 (71.6) 54 29 12 122 (82.4%)
Female 86 (28.4%) 42 4 14 26 (17.6%)
Total 303 96 33 26 148

6/7/76 Male 255 (76.8%) $1 35 13 156 (86.2%)
Female 77 (23.2%) 41 1 10 25 (13.8%)
Total 332 92 36 23 181

6/14/76 Male 124 (70.1%) 25 18 5 76 (87.4%)
Female 53 (29.9%) 33 l 8 ll (12.6%)
Total 177 58 19 13 87

6/21/76 Male 254 (75.8%) 77 33 10 134 (92.4%)
Female 81 (24.2%) 50 2 18 11 (7.6%)
Total 335 127 35 28 145

6/28/76 Male 258 (75.4%) 60 40 19 139 (84.2%)
Female 84 (24.6%) 47 0 11 26 (15.8%)
Total 342 107 40 30 165

Totals for

June, 1976
Male 1,108 (74.4%) 267 155 59 627 (86.4%)
Female 381 (25.6%) 213 8 61 99 (13.6%)
Total 1,489 480 ‘163 120 726

TABLE OF JURORS SUMMON3D FOR DUTY IN KANSAS CITY, JULY, 1976

Week of Summoned (%) Excused Deferred Not Appearing ' Appeared for Service
7/6/76 Male 241 (76.0%) 74 23 A 12 132 (89.2%)
Female 76 (24.0%) 50 1 ; 9 -16 (10.2%)
Totale 317 a 124 24 21 148
—_
7/12/76 Male 244 (73.5%) 79 27 12 126 (86.3%)
Female 88 (26.5%) . oY, 1 10 : 20 (13.7%)
Total 332 156 28 22 146
7/19/76 Male 216 (74.5%) $3 33 14 116 (87.9%)
Female 74 (25.5%) 41 4 13 16 (12.1%)
Total 290 94 37 27 132
7/26/76 Male 136 (70.3%) 39 17 Gre 75 (78.1%)
Female 56 (29.2%) 28 2 5 21 (21.9%)
Total 192 67 19 10 96
~ Totals for ta *
July, 1976.
Male 837 (74.0%) 245 100 43 449 (86.0%)
Female 294 (26.0%) 176 8 } 37 73 (14.0%)

Total 1,131 421 108 80 522

.

’ . "
‘e@
‘ ° - . . .
yr j Tri'2 35. Age by Race and Sex, ‘ar Counties: 1979—Continyed ,
! eS i a . "or ramen Sine wed * qunpe loert en — 4a, CV 45d monn el sy o08. tee toot
He. ee
1979 sep.'er00 | 1979 sor. eee
On
'
i ‘ Sian o's »
Counties Alesces wre Nero ' al rcce “ Na
Wes 19
. 93:. 2% 29. @
Tors Mee = femsie se ems e] Male Bema * 3h Tavs wre Fers'e! “es@ = =femsel fre Pemg'e D-
HOWAIO j bows
Sva7 8 4he) 4 ote a ert} aren] ne ese: 9352) ane ote ual et a TT] 20 a7] 32 on
a. 632 ry ro) ? n ig! 393 1? 15a! ‘7 tha ° ‘ 47
7 ” 65 e ‘ + 17>! 332 115 sy 33 us ° e 423
122 13) rT) 75 s rn i 177{ 329 13 172 1a 13? = zs o>
$350 U ni a re) re) 55 . u so 3 Iss ud 153 - t 47
&% és 7 $? 3 ? 339} 3 153 192 s 7 ‘ 442
ts ?” 72 0 5 Ly a 332 7s s ”% wir - ' 423
we 7s 3) s! 18 iF) 169, “3 133 2:5 i723 Pd) ° ’ a7
” 3 a) 6 ” n 22? “6 2:5 ve" ota in . * a
9% %: e a ‘ 2 172! 432 222 272 222 27 a e tha
” ts 72 ?? “u 9 1? 45a 223 Pe ne 13) 2 ° ‘ a2
$9 92 8 » . " ne 4a) 21 2 28 725 ' 2 30
19? ” e ” “ 2 WT 472 223 234 27 2 ’ ’ 453
Reon 7) rT) £9 7 10 n 432 473 249 223 337 23) ' ' Pr
Shane er ‘ 190 $$ 9 #0 7) 6 5 122 423 235 213 7s 215 pa i tT)
06 WU csaetnasnncnnsen ep enesscascsines 194 1 133 a 9% , é ts! 529 72 225 3 iu . ptr
°8 YOCPSee 20 cece 1000 scence an eneececocces 7 yor Se 8s eo s ° 14g a) 223 2 22% a" ' e 372
. scesenanabanusuneneses 13) n 83 t0 9 ” . 15? ats 27 219 2e4 27 ’ ’ as?
Lf eterna cena pie 6! 8 4 i | eS) ee yr -) 4 -
; onthanennp 254 132 137 122 173 ’ 9 25) 287 172 195 3 WI ° ’ 235
3D 968 Oee acca cs as coepenen coccenese ; :
? 271 eT 137 127 a ? . ast 32 154 137 t33 37 om e 226
9D 9008 .ncocccsuscsenes coeses 273 135 13 125 138 r ” 225 273 ta 155 1s 153 ’ ’ 0
. nn 6 62 21220 3516] 2078 = 3207) 2 = 338] 0875} 8012 «-7c92) «00 920] gcse aso is 1%] 13 47s
i coe en anes anencoancotsenese 705 a 3) 339 2/4 $1 923) (1 697 ta 62? ea) eu - t] 2058
319 tee rayne 677 06 an ” asa 2 $4 9:2) 2071 teat 8030) 132: GS ae 2) 22¢5
UD 00 00 gENO.. csccancsencoencocoenanese 932 a»? 4s “or a 33 $4 6% 247 32% 11s) 1275 1 3 4 22
0500 89 OO oss cscncnensntdeesens omef 8 01S se! S54 #3 3) 97 4 991] 20a) «(0G ) «6 ONS] oie Ot cop 2 2) 1 2
231324 peers... eebenenavanavesanees 943 43 ri 4“? ary 7 rT) a2t] st 2a 576 701 379 ov 3 2] bch
5B 10 FP NB csp eccemeneneoeentnenens 475 223 27 223 2:3 ° ” 404; 1223 637 sat ‘41 es -| vcar
* eo an a een en oe anenceasasece 421 0 22: 192 172 ” 23 sic] 4 078 $61 63 $86 129 ~ -| 0 ta
3 ° 5 eae ene init ati an) 3 233 3 215 M4 7 Sie) an2 $24 62 $3! os ma -}| 122
G00 00 Giant coeeuadiantneneed $35 233 242 244 2:7 vv 2) Sts 10 425 60) o2) 420 - 3 109 |
45°24? pears... .. Sa zis 2 235 29? ” 23 eia} 1353 €23 75 eu 75 PY 2] var |
$3 +9 54 yoors.. ‘ 52> 253 273 235 24 v7 24 é24| 1 420 676 724 679 716 4 S| 2 259
5S OS 50 90a we een coarse sor iv dia zs 3?! 27 2) €22 1 Jeo tu 76 637 in ' 1 vita
63°29 $4 yer 593 235 a 236 733 ” 25 ia} 8 ata 653 729 Eva] 742 2 3} ess |
65 t 9? seers... $4 240 33) 220 238 2 2 ec3} 123) ea 633 4:0 42 2 -| son
73 *9 78 serrs.. 475 2" 257 193 231 23 23 $15 921 47 498 <2 490 - = 243
7$ +9 7% pers S72 153 27 ts 93 iS 12 ro 633 312 TH) 3 8 - i 6s d
10-9 24 veers... 267 120 157 87 157 n 10 213 aut 199 225 197 Qos o> } 32
25 p08 one ee 27 7s 12? 6? 135 a ? 122 743 Mm 152 mm ht = e 4a
Brae 10 580s ccccccsdces te ed eS) ee) ee ne re ee er) re 3 644 5 9} 787
4 62 pores s°¢ a0e....—-. . aa eae %>! 127 ess 192 97 rt 62255, 44280 «20580 2272} 2:9” 333 4 2 36?
x > WO Wtecmesemenianlt 0 ie 225 I Cee 72 53?) Ba So} 1825) 3552 8657 Dees! Foun EBay 2 1] 2 492
a y DUPER cnininiehaanbectithtsmedanice 325 27.4 35a 39 1) 28 We 352 a3 39 355 20 355] S00) ats 324
120N JATKSON
4404 4 ass pT) NO] 8 Gan! O58 S58 200 420 345 497) 254 457 285 D0 152 O96 59 990 | ore 137
9 23 ° . 15) 0 209 5 678 0 2
6) B) ° . iss! 10423 $3
6? $2 ' 1 92) 9823) 4613
9? es - - N25) 19292 $237
93 29 2 - 190; UbCar §Ot7
rt) as ° ; ~ 199) $923
, 91 $9 ° - 155] 12375 2a
4 | on eden > wc SS Bee oe
* 2 oe 5 e - - 7] NID 6en
~* bo? wecenecneteae * * ie sel s2417 6 825
Aan ? || td pews... $? | aoe i iat Wen ost
a |
— n 192 7 ’ : 120) 12157 6774
FR iD | J Memeo tees ee mn ees ) e3 ' ° 123) 137230 6 982
it ie es ee e3 a 2 He] 12935) 6 a8)
00 20 00 cc cocecccccccces co 93 t3¢ - ' Iie) 12.553 6412
, © SN et oo CNN ” 7 . 9] 12015 6 tas
4 3 poenhnbansbeniness 107 2 | . Mo} 8139 5 735
Re 72 23 ' 3 151] 88 0se) ) § PDy
- ¢ 6s 33 ' ' ‘te 5oee
. Whe 5) a ' - a3 423
> ” $i - “ "5 3237
* 2617) 3443 10 1) 4908 125 974
as 23 3 ' 4
. : 45) ° 1 737
at be hit . eee 4/2 4 ? gis
og | 18°D'9 gos... 325 ? ‘ 313
; eo Mth ep 295 ° : 257 ‘ *:
PS” BD | 2B 050 068b.cccacs “we - - jks ua
> a i), 22° ’ 2 ” 227 1°
= 5 eA o$ "3 2% pores , 244 ? » ’ $9 359) 34:
= 7 “32h 42 2 2a yore 22s 23? ’ - Wo cie! ts
DEPARTMENT ta BP t-P 74 adetatesetasesenarenenste Sie |e Bae Myst:
r =RCE OP RM IO: ici Sicuoreccacbisuece 2? 232 2 ’ 2 asa] tts
f COMMERCE Paid |} teendeteqecasetenasnsepenen aa ae. 2] : ” a :
= & +a 3 233 ad - 2 208, WS erat tt tee
BUREAU OF EXMiDit oh 32M rte coeemeseeesssemnseneee . oe Oe 3; fot
© ee "7 7 ' - : tart
THE c=nNsus E ; te > - ! é #3] .4
ss ta - £3 $322: 3
% eo Pil - . 3 4 seat ae)
- $4320 $32 ”n ] xan! MD Ted Beret Fe to
-ea ft 73) 3 4 2! haere T$608 SPetgt Fs oe
. => Fase rar 25 4 J eR SP ek 488998 53 5
Kae Ss yue-4 a 323} 098 = 325, Bey 23 if ae)
. 27—753 MMissoUR GENERAL POPLLAT ON CHARACTERISTICS
° vv. °
° ~~. °
. .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0468%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.