Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Duren v. Missouri

United States Supreme Court
 439 U.S. 357 (1979)


Facts

Duren (plaintiff) was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery. He argued that his constitutional right to a trial by a jury that is a fair cross-section of the community was violated because of a Missouri law that automatically exempted women who requested not to serve. Duren showed that women in the Missouri community were given several opportunities to claim automatic exemption. At the beginning of the jury selection process, women could claim exemption in response to a questionnaire containing a paragraph with special instructions for women who wished not to serve. Those who returned questionnaires without claiming exemption became part of the jury wheel. Summonses were sent to people randomly selected from the jury wheel. The summonses directed women who wished not to serve to simply return the summons by mail. Finally, if a woman did not return the summons but failed to show up for jury service, she was exempted. Duren presented statistical evidence to support his argument. He showed that 54 percent of adults in the community were women according to the 1970 census. Duren also established that only 26.7 percent of the people summoned at the time his jury was chosen were women. Of those who appeared for service, only 741 were women while 4,378 were men. This resulted in venires that were only around 15 percent female. Duren’s statistical evidence was not disputed. His all-male jury was selected from a panel of 53 people, of which 5 were female. The state court held that the number of females in the jury process was acceptable and affirmed Duren’s conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.