Women in United States juries

The representation of women on United States juries drastically increased during the last hundred years because of legislation and court rulings.

Stemming from English common law, matrons in the American colonies were occasionally called upon in cases involving pregnant women to offer expertise on pregnancy and childbirth.

[1] William Blackstone spearheaded the idea of women's exclusion as a result of "proper defectum sexus," meaning "based on the defect of sex", and his beliefs were integrated into the legal systems of the United States, including the ideals of coverture.

[2] Women's place on the jury would be challenged for decades with arguments including their supposed lack of intelligence, emotional stability, and need to tend to home life.

[7] When the Great Depression struck the nation in the 1930s, organizations like the Federal Grand Jury Association (FGJA),[8] a voluntary association of present or former grand jurors in the Southern District, began to expand their requirements for those who could serve on juries to retain working men in their positions and have enough jurors serving in the court.

In 1937, woman federal jurors won official approval and in some states, including California, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, participation on a jury was compulsory.

[11] He argued for the expansion of the juries to be "truly representative of the community"; however, he believed that jurors had to be able to complete a series of tests that proved their literacy and intelligence.

The tests given to potential jurors created rules and regulations that barred the unemployed as well as those who had different clothing, speech patterns, or spelling than what was deemed acceptable to those who ran the screening process.

[9]The media portrayed female jurors in both positive and negative ways as women throughout the country pushed to gain the right to serve on juries.

"[12] Some media portrayals claimed that women would be swayed by handsome male criminals and allow guilty men to walk free.

A 1927 article from the New York Times claims that courts would have to tend to "fainting fits and outbursts of tears" if women were to be included as potential jurors.

[14] Furthermore, research from the past shows that the women were typically attributed toward "the tendency to be emotional, submissive, envious and passive," thus creating biased juries.

"[9] Rather than being seen as overly sensitive and emotional, women began to gain the identity as more "civilized" than men and they were placed on a pedestal of "moral superiority.

[22] Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as the attorney representing Marsha Healy in opposing Louisiana's optional jury service for women.

[3] Ginsburg argued that “a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded.”[22] Taylor v. Louisiana’s ruling was similar to Healy v. Edwards, but it was fought in the Supreme Court so it overturned Hoyt v. Florida.

However, the judge rejected this argument and ruled in favor of Taylor, stating that every defendant deserved a jury from a fair cross section of his peers.

[3] In 1968, Duncan v. Louisiana made the Sixth Amendment, the right to an impartial jury, apply to states as well, which political scientist Eric Kasper suggests explains the difference between the rulings in Hoyt v. Florida and Taylor v.

In order to pass, the jury pool must regularly reflect an accurate proportion of members of a distinct group in the general population—in this case, women.

[23] The push for women's jury rights was largely fought for on a state-by-state basis, with each state facing its own unique challenges.

For example, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Oregon allow exemptions to jury service for nursing mothers.