Jenison, In re
| Decision Date | 20 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 38940,38940 |
| Citation | 267 Minn. 136,125 N.W.2d 588,2 A.L.R.3d 1389 |
| Parties | , 2 A.L.R.3d 1389 In re Contempt Proceedings In re Mrs. Owen JENISON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Upon reconsideration of the decision reached in the case of In re Jenison Contempt Proceedings, 265 Minn. 96, 120 N.W.2d 515, pursuant to a remand from the United States Supreme Court, 375 U.S. 14, 84 S.Ct. 63, 11 L.Ed.2d 39, Held:
In the absence of a present or prospective showing that the effectiveness of the jury system will be seriously jeopardized by excusing from duty jurors whose religious convictions prohibit them from serving, such persons shall hereafter be exempt.
John S. Connolly, St. Paul, Louis W. Claeson, Jr., Minneapolis, Jesse Choper, Law School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, for relator.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. General, St. Paul, Thomas J. Simmons, County Atty., Olivia, for respondent.
The relator, Laverna H. Jenison, was found guilty of contempt by the District Court of Renville County for refusing on religious grounds to serve as a petit juror. On review this court affirmed, March 8, 1963. In re Jenison Contempt Proceedings, 265 Minn. 96, 120 N.W.2d 515. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to us for further consideration 'in light of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965),' decided by that court on June 17, 1963. 1
Upon reconsideration we have come to the conclusion there has been an inadequate showing that the state's interest in obtaining competent jurors requires us to override relator's right to the free exercise of her religion. Consequently we hold that until and unless further experience indicates that the indiscriminate invoking of the First Amendment poses a serious threat to the effective functioning of our jury system, any person whose religious convictions prohibit compulsory jury duty shall henceforth be exempt.
What constitutes 'religion,' and whether the free exercise of conscience is also entitled to protection, are questions yet to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Nor are we able to suggest future guidelines for ascertaining in particular cases whether or not the First Amendment is being invoked with sincerity. Where a juror is a member of a faith which includes as a part of its dogma a prohibition against jury duty, the problem is relatively simple. It becomes more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biklen v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, CITY SCHOOL DIST., SYRACUSE, NY
...an affirmation that is antithetic to her personal beliefs. In re Jenison, 375 U.S. 14, 84 S.Ct. 63, 11 L.Ed.2d 39, on remand, 267 Minn. 136, 125 N.W.2d 588 (1963); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). The Supreme Court has consistently held that the religi......
-
Bobb v. Municipal Court
...contemnor demonstrated her sincerity by her willingness to go to jail rather than compromise her conscientious belief. 8 (In re Jenison, supra, 267 Minn. 136, 137 One of the most celebrated refusal to serve cases is United States v. Hillyard (E.D.Wash.1943) 52 F.Supp. 612, which is notewort......
-
United States v. Thorn
...374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), (denial of unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians); In re Jenison contempt proceedings, 267 Minn. 136, 125 N.W.2d 588 (Minn.1963), (compulsory jury duty). In this case, however, defendant has been ordered to work in a hospital, an employmen......
-
State v. Yoder
...v. Verner, supra, and In re Jenison (1963), 265 Minn. 96, 120 N.W.2d 515; (1963) 375 U.S. 14, 84 S.Ct. 63, 11 L.Ed.2d 39; (1963), 267 Minn. 136, 125 N.W.2d 588. There is no question that, as found by the trial court, the compulsory education law infringes upon the free exercise of religion ......