Dayton v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
WASSERSTROM, Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Rule 27.26. We affirm.
Defendant’s first point is that his trial counsel was ineffective for not having moved to quash the jury panel on the ground that it had been selected by procedure discriminatory against women. This argument is based upon Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), which in turn applied to Missouri practice the principles first announced in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975).
Lee v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 461,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Taylor v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Duren v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Daniel v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Lee v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. DaytonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Burton v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Pollard v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. HutsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- Burton v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Easton v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989