KING
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the right to a jury panel without intentional exclusion of women can be waived if not timely objected to.
Appellant sought to vacate his conviction and sentence, alleging intentional exclusion of women from the grand and petit juries. No objection was made…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the same question as Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F. 2d 405.
Appellant, by motion to vacate judgment, sought to have his sentence and conviction set aside, on the ground that there had been an intentional and systematic exclusion of women (who are eligible for jury service in Arkansas) from the grand jury by which he was indicted and from the petit jury by which he was tried. The trial court denied the motion.
No objection had previously been made to either the grand jury or the petit jury in the trial court or on the appeal taken to this court from the conviction, King v. United States, 8 Cir., 144 F. 2d 729, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 854, 65 S.Ct. 711, 89 L.Ed. 1413.
As the Wright case holds, the right to not have women intentionally and systematically excluded from a jury panel is one that may be waived, and it will ordinarily be deemed to have been so waived where timely objection is not made in the proceedings and the question is sought to be raised for the first time by a motion to vacate the judgment.
It may be added that the practice of excluding women from the jury in the Dis trict of Arkansas has apparently since been discontinued, so that there also would be no possible basis for a reversal of the judgment here as a general corrective measure.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1958)
-
King v. United States, 346 F.2d 123 (1st Cir. 1965)
-
York v. United States, 167 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1948)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- King v. United States, 144 F.2d 729 (8th Cir. 1944)
- King v. United States, 324 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1945)
- Wright v. United States, 165 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1948)