TCDC News, Events and Opinion

Until 1937, “A jury of one’s peers” did not include women

Winning the vote in 1919 did not give New York women full citizenship.

Eighteen years later, in February 1937, with much discussion, the New York State Senate passed the Kleinfield Permissive Woman Juror bill, allowing New York counties to determine who was eligible for jury duty. Tompkins County opted to make enrollment for jury duty voluntary for women, meaning that any woman registered to vote would be added to the jury lists. At the same time, any woman who did not care to serve on a jury could register her unwillingness to participate.

There were practical reasons for declining. Some women, especially those in rural areas, could not get to the courthouse, either because they could not drive, or a vehicle was not available for them to make daily trips into the city. Others worried that their clothing would be viewed as inadequate for appearance in court.

The Tompkins County Bar Association was not in favor of women being appointed to a jury, voting to disapprove of the change at a meeting in 1937. The League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women, however, voiced strong support.

In October 1937, with 35 women eligible to become jurors, Judge Simpson created a night school to instruct women on jury duty, as he believed women would be able to aid the courts. He commented that with “the advent of the automobile, and of women in business the number of women litigants is equal to that of men. It is only fitting that they should assist in giving the verdicts.”

The classes were taught by New York Supreme Court Judge Riley Heath. He cautioned that women, “should remember that some witnesses are very plausible and convincing and that other witnesses are nervous and jittery and you must not accept their testimony at face value. On the other hand, the smooth talker may be perfectly honest and the man who is excited may be so because he is guilty. You have to decide, and it is a great responsibility, because the case may be very important from a human point of view.”

Although his words sound condescending to us today, Judge Simpson was being realistic for the times. Some thought women might disturb the court, or might be swayed by a handsome lawyer, or by a sympathetic speech; there were even comments that attractive women in court might disturb lawyers.

Judge Simpson said that the thing to remember was that, “you as a juror are the judge of the fact. … This is a responsibility which you must deeply feel.”

I need to note that no such instruction or comment was made about male persons who were called to jury duty.

In 1938 there were eight women’s names on the February Grand jury roll, listed by occupation and place of residence.

The first woman called to serve was Mary Curtis, who was not willing to serve. In January 1938, Mrs. Hall, not identified by her given name, wife of the Town of Groton’s Chief of Police, accepted the assignment, saying, “my interest is in my home and my husband’s work.”

It was not until 1975 that the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Taylor v. Louisiana, that, “a jury was not duly constituted without a fair cross section of society. That men and women were equally obligated to jury service.”

Equality for women is not yet a given. We all should urge President Biden to publish the Equal Rights Amendment, which has already been ratified by the required number of states, that it might become established law as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is time and the time is now.

For another take on the last paragraph, see the Message from the Chair in this section.