Riggs: A moment worth celebrating in Maricopa court

There is certainly progress to be made in securing the inalienable rights (rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that belong to all people. There is room for improvement to provide all with a meaningful opportunity to exercise civil rights (rights to vote and sit on juries, for example) and to participate in government. But, in our quest to improve, it is beneficial from time to time to celebrate achievements along the way.

One moment occurred last week in Maricopa. The Maricopa Municipal Court held a jury trial. The defendant faced misdemeanor charges. The court empaneled a petit jury of seven members. One was designated as an alternate and excused at the end of the trial, before deliberations began. All of this is quite common around courts in Arizona.

The participants in the proceeding, however, made this particular trial historically unique and a moment worth celebrating. The judge presiding over the proceeding was a woman. All seven jurors were women from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. While both the prosecutor and defense attorney were men, they were both minorities. The lead detective in the case was also a minority man.

Twenty-five years ago having this composition of participants was possible in all jurisdictions, but not probable. There were no legal impediments to sitting an all-woman jury, or having a woman as a judge. There were no legal impediments to minority participation in any of these roles. However, the number of minority attorneys and women judges was still relatively small. In the last twenty-five years, the numbers have increased in both groups making this scenario not only possible, but probable.

Fifty years ago having this composition was possible in some jurisdictions in the United States, but not all. There were some legal prohibitions (de jure discrimination) in some jurisdictions that would have prevented this scenario. Even were de jure discrimination did not exist, the scenario would have been very unlikely.

Very few women were allowed to attend law school and even fewer were judges. Very few minority men attended law school. At that time, the process of selecting people for jury pools often resulted in excluding women and minorities, a form of de facto discrimination.

In the last 50 years, all de jure discrimination that prevented women and minorities from participating in these roles has been removed. Additionally, tremendous strides have been made to eliminate de facto discrimination against women and minority participation in these roles. In the last 50 years, we have made great progress in providing all with an opportunity to exercise civil rights.

One hundred years ago, the composition of the participants in last week’s jury trial in the Maricopa Municipal Court, was most likely impossible. De jure discrimination prevailed. Women and minorities were generally prohibited from practicing law, being judges, and sitting on juries. In the last 100 years we have made great progress in securing for all the blessing of liberty and meaningful opportunities to participate in government.