King v. United States, 13610.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 13610.,13610. |
| Parties | KING v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William J. Fanning, of Sulphur Springs, Tex., for appellant.
David R. Boatright, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Ft. Smith, Ark. (R. S. Wilson, U. S. Atty., and Chas. A. Beasley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Ft. Smith, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, THOMAS, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
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 District 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cohen
...187, 67 S.Ct. 261; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457; Chance v. United States, 322 F.2d 201 at 204; King v. United States, 165 F.2d 408 (8th Cir. 1948); United States v. Duke, supra, 263 F.Supp. at 834; Geography: King v. United States, supra, 346 F.2d 123 at 124; Chance v......
-
Miranda v. United States
...Hartwell, C.C.Mass.1870, 26 Fed.Cas.pp. 204, 205, No. 15,319; Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 405, 407; King v. United States, 8 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 408, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 848, 65 S.Ct. 1499, 92 L.Ed. 1771; York v. United States, 8 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 847, 848; Un......
-
State v. Rorie, 433
...Procedure accord with this practice. See Rule 12. Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782. In King v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 408, cert. den. 324 U.S. 854, 65 S.Ct. 711, 89 L.Ed. 1413, King challenged the validity of his conviction because of intentional ......
-
Rambo v. Peyton
...v. Klock, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 217; York v. United States, 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 847; Brown v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 409; King v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 408; Wright v. United States, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 405. Whether or not the record here is sufficient to support an affirmative findi......