Thiel v. S. Pac. Company

Supreme Court of the United States · 1946 · Evidence

328 U.S. 217 (1946)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceJury selectionjury panelcross-section of the communitysystematic exclusiondaily wage earnersfederal courtsimpartial jury

Facts

Petitioner challenged the entire federal jury panel on the ground that it was selected to overrepresent business-oriented persons and underrepresent workers and poorer citizens. At the hearing, the clerk and jury commissioner testified that they deliberately excluded from the jury lists all persons who worked for a daily wage, using the city directory to identify and omit such persons because judges usually excused them for financial hardship. Businessmen and their wives made up at least half of the jury lists, while laborers paid weekly or monthly wages and wives of daily wage earners were included. The district court denied the challenge, and the jury found for respondent.

Issue

Whether a federal district court improperly denied a motion to strike a jury panel where court officials had intentionally and systematically excluded all daily wage earners from the jury lists. More broadly, the question was whether such a blanket exclusion is compatible with the requirement that federal juries be drawn from an impartial cross-section of the community.

Rule

Trial by jury in federal court contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community. Although every jury need not mirror every group, court officials may not systematically and intentionally exclude any substantial economic, social, religious, racial, political, or geographical group from jury selection; blanket exclusion of all daily wage earners is impermissible, even though some individuals in that class might properly be excused for actual undue financial hardship.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal civil trial in Denver, the clerk and jury commissioner compiled the master jury list from a directory but automatically removed all people listed as paid by the day in construction, warehouse, and landscaping jobs. They explained that such people often claim they cannot afford to serve for the statutory jury fee, so excluding them in advance saves time.

If the losing plaintiff moves to strike the panel before trial, how should the federal court rule?

Explanation. The motion should be granted. The majority held that federal juries must be drawn from a cross-section of the community and that court officials may not systematically and intentionally exclude a substantial economic group from jury lists. Blanket exclusion of all daily wage earners is invalid even if some individuals might later be excused for real financial hardship. The wrong lies in the wholesale exclusion at the panel-selection stage, not merely in the final petit jury composition.