Petition of Salen. State v. Salen
| Citation | 231 Wis. 489,286 N.W. 5 |
| Parties | Petition of SALEN. STATE v. SALEN. |
| Decision Date | 12 September 1939 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Petition for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court for Waukesha County; Clayton F. Van Pelt, Judge.
Writ denied.
Petition of Herman R. Salen for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court for Waukesha county from proceeding with the trial of petitioner upon an indictment charging perjury and false swearing.
On January 30, 1939, the grand jury of Waukesha county presented an indictment against Salen. On April 3rd Salen moved to quash this indictment on the grounds that the grand jury was intentionally, purposely and deliberately composed entirely of male persons. When the motion was heard testimony was taken and after argument by counsel the court made findings of fact, which were as follows: Each of the three jury commissioners for Waukesha county selected fifty names of persons for grand jury service, and these lists were combined into one which the commissioners adopted as their grand jury list. One commissioner testified that it was by pure accident that no women were included in his list; another selected only men because he believed that women were not eligible to serve upon a grand jury; the third commissioner selected no women because he believed that women would be embarrassed by the testimony which would probably be presented. The commissioners did not agree among themselves to exclude women, nor were they prompted to do so by prejudice, passion or bias or by any other improper motives.
The court also found that the grand jury selected by the commissioners was a fair and impartial grand jury, possessing all of the qualifications required by sec. 255.01, Stats., and that the defendant was not prejudiced in any way by the failure to select women The court concluded that because Salen was not a person of the class excluded he could not complain of the exclusion. The motion to quash was therefore denied.
Lawrence J. Brody, of La Crosse, and Edward J. Gehl, of Hartford, for petitioner.
Scott Lowry, Dist. Atty., of Waukesha, and Winfred C. Zabel, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., and Roland J. Steinle, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for the State.
This is an original proceeding in this court. By stipulation of counsel the application for leave to file a petition for an alternative writ of prohibition is to be regarded as the petition. The state demurs to the application. The petitioner contends that he has been deprived of statutory and constitutional rights because no women were chosen to serve upon the grand jury which returned an indictment against him. He relies particularly upon cases in which convictions were reversed because members of a particular race were excluded from jury service, Norris v. Alabama, 1935, 294 U.S. 587, 55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074.
[1] The petitioner makes no showing that he has been treated unfairly or that he was prejudiced in any way. The rule in this state is that irregularities in the selection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lindell
...to take advantage thereof has been prejudiced thereby. Ullman v. State (1905), 124 Wis. 602, 609, 103 N.W. 6." Petition of Salen, 231 Wis. 489, 491, 286 N.W. 5 (1939). Accord Pamanet v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 501, 509, 182 N.W.2d 459 (1971). In other cases this court has indicated that it will r......
-
State v. Coble
...to take advantage thereof has been prejudiced thereby. Ullman v. State (1905), 124 Wis. 602, 609, 103 N.W. 6." Petition of Salen, 231 Wis. 489, 491, 286 N.W. 5 (1939). Accord Pamanet v. State, 49 Wis.2d 501, 509, 182 N.W.2d 459 (1971). In other cases this court has indicated that it will re......
-
State v. Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.
...and that is the rule followed in this state. " Citing 5 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, p. 82, sec. 1956; Petition of Salen, 231 Wis. 489, 491, 286 N.W. 5 (1939); Ullman v. State, 124 Wis. 602, 609, 103 N.W. 6 (1905).45 Hoppe v. State, 74 Wis.2d 107, 120-122, 246 N.W.2d 122 (1976).46 ......
-
United States v. Glasser
...are to be disregarded. Wolfson v. United States, 5 Cir., 101 F. 430; Moffatt v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 522; and Petition of Salen, 231 Wis. 489, 286 N.W. 5. The reason for this rule is that the grand jurors do not try the case but merely charge the accused. The manner of their select......