Taylor v. Louisiana - Case Study Example

Taylor v. LouisianaFacts: Billy Taylor was charged with kidnapping and rape by a court in Louisiana. He was tried by a court that had a jury that comprised of males only. Mr. Taylor was sentenced to death by the jury. He appealed on the basis that the jury was unconstitutional as it excluded women who comprise 53% of people eligible for jury.Procedural History: Billy Taylor was arrested on suspicion of rape and robbery in Louisiana. He was tried in state court, and the verdict decided by a jury that comprised of only men.

The appellant argued that the jury was unconstitutional and violated his rights to a fair trial as stipulated in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment. The State argued that the appellant right for fair a trial was not breached since he does not belong to the excluded faction. Taylor appealed the procedural issues to the Supreme Court of the United States.Legal Issues:Issue 1: Whether the state of Louisiana acted unconstitutionally by not allowing women to serve on the jury.Issue 2: Whether the non-inclusion of women in the case breached the appellants’ right to a fair trial under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Holdings:Issue 1: Yes. The exclusion of women in state juries is a violation of the Sixth Amendment's that requires a jury to be formed out of a fair cross-section of the community.Issue 2: Yes. The constitution stipulates that a constitutional jury represent all factions of the community. Thus, the jury was unconstitutional.Reasoning:Issue 1:The appellant argued that 53% of women in Louisiana were eligible to be on the jury. However, the state discriminated women. According to the Sixth Amendment, a jury must represent all a factions in the community such as race, ethnicity and gender.

Thus, the State violated the constitution. It is thus breach of constitutional right to uphold the verdict of a jury whose composition does not meet the constitutional threshold.Issue 2:The argument of Louisiana State is that the right for fair hearing was not affected since the Appellant did not belong to the class that was discriminated. However, in Smith v. Texas (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that for a jury system to fair and impartial, it must be made of a cross section of the community.

Thus, no verdict is enforceable from the decision of the jury, based on a nullity.Decision:Reversed and remanded. The court decision was based on the fact that the constitutional requirement was not met in the selection of the jury. A nullity was found in the manner that Louisiana set up an all-male jury in a community where 53% of the women were fit to sit on the jury.Comment:The case is an example of the role of the Supreme Court of the United States in ensuring a fair trial for all suspects.

The case presents two scenarios; the requirement for n all inclusive jury, and whether the all-male jury compromised the fairness of the trial. However, the constitution should reign supreme. Thus, the supreme decision of the Supreme Court was based on a matter of law and adherence to the constitution.ReferencesSmith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128 (1940)Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)