The case happened back in 1961. A married women, Gwendolyn Hoyt, who suffered physical and mental from her husband, ended up murdering him. She then showed neurotic behavior. Her case was judged by a six-man jury for 30 years of hard labor. Hoyt pointed out that it was discrimination to let all-male jury deliberate her trial.
Before it went to supreme court, this case was first presented in Florida State Trial Court. The arguments plaintiff made was that jury discrimination and Florida’s keeping women from jury on purpose have indeed occurred. It was known as “the continuing validity” that it supports the action to keep males as the primary and only source of juror on these trials. It was argued that women were excluded solely due to their sex and were recognized to be the center of home and family but not in courtroom. Appellant, on the other hand, argues that despite the design of Florida enactment, women, like men, can only be perceived as available under compulsion. To support, it was then pointed out that merely 220 women registered to be female voters …show more content…
It requires only that the jury be indiscriminately drawn from among those in the community eligible for jury service, untrammelled by any arbitrary and systematic exclusions.
(b) The Florida statute is not unconstitutional on its face, since it is not constitutionally impermissible for a State to conclude that a woman should be relieved from jury service unless she herself determines that such service is consistent with her own special responsibilities. Pp.
(c) It cannot be said that the statute is unconstitutional as applied in this case, since there is no substantial evidence in the record that Florida has arbitrarily undertaken to exclude women from jury
Before it went to supreme court, this case was first presented in Florida State Trial Court. The arguments plaintiff made was that jury discrimination and Florida’s keeping women from jury on purpose have indeed occurred. It was known as “the continuing validity” that it supports the action to keep males as the primary and only source of juror on these trials. It was argued that women were excluded solely due to their sex and were recognized to be the center of home and family but not in courtroom. Appellant, on the other hand, argues that despite the design of Florida enactment, women, like men, can only be perceived as available under compulsion. To support, it was then pointed out that merely 220 women registered to be female voters …show more content…
It requires only that the jury be indiscriminately drawn from among those in the community eligible for jury service, untrammelled by any arbitrary and systematic exclusions.
(b) The Florida statute is not unconstitutional on its face, since it is not constitutionally impermissible for a State to conclude that a woman should be relieved from jury service unless she herself determines that such service is consistent with her own special responsibilities. Pp.
(c) It cannot be said that the statute is unconstitutional as applied in this case, since there is no substantial evidence in the record that Florida has arbitrarily undertaken to exclude women from jury