State v. Rosenberg
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtHALLAjVI, J.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of receiving stolen goods from two men, Wall and Willard. He appeals from >the judgment and sentence.
The jury that convicted him was composed of both women and men. Defendant contends that women are not eligible for jury service under the Constitution of this state, and that therefore the jury was not a lawful jury. G. S. 1913, § TOGO, defined a petit jury as a body of “twelve men.” Chapter 365, p. 549, Laws 1921, amends this so as to read “twelve men or women or both.” The contention is that this statute, insofar as it qualifies women as petit jurors, is…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Neal v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- State v. HameySupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- State v. JamesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1921
- Birdsong v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. HammSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Tynan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
- In Re House Bill No. 145Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- State v. NortonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.