Judgments of Missouri Supreme Court and Missouri Court of
Appeals affirming convictions as against fair cross-section claims
based on exclusion of women from juries are vacated, and the cases
are remanded for reconsideration in light of
Duren v. Missouri,
ante p.
439 U. S. 357.
Because
Duren does not announce any "new standards" of
constitutional law not evident from the decision in
Taylor v.
Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522, the
considerations calling for departure from full retroactive
application of constitutional holdings are inapplicable to juries
sworn after the
Taylor decision.
Certiorari granted in Nos. 77066, 77-6068, 77-6701, and 77-7012.
556 S.W.2d
11;
556 S.W.2d
25; 556 S.W.2d 135; 559 S.W.2d 749; 560 S.W.2d 283; and 564
S.W.2d 328, vacated and remanded.
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, 656 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.
Page 439 U. S. 462
Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522
(1975).
Ante p.
439 U. S. 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,
388 U. S. 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.
439 U. S. 357.
So ordered.
[For opinion of MR. JUSTICE POWELL concurring in the judgments,
see ante, p.
439 U. S.
460.]
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST dissents.
* Together with No. 77-6068,
Minor v. Missouri, also on
certiorari to, and No. 77-6553,
Arrington v. Missouri, on
appeal from, the same court, and No. 77-6701,
Burnfin v.
Missouri, and No. 77-7012,
Combs v. Missouri, on
certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City
District.