Jury of Matrons: An All-Female Jury in the Twenty-First Century

You are a married woman in Norwich, England. The year is 1832. Word has just arrived that you have been summoned to serve on a jury along with eleven other “"worthy and discreet” married women. The defendant, also a woman, has already been found guilty of poisoning her husband with arsenic. You and your fellow jurors share a singular task: decide whether or not the guilty woman is “quick with child,” so that she may be hanged sooner rather than later.

This was the real life task of the all-female jury that was summoned in the case of Mary Wright. During this time in England, the court could summon a “jury of matrons” whenever a female defendant “pled the belly,” or, claimed that she was pregnant in order to stay her date of execution. The jury of matrons was an early exception to the general prohibition on women serving on juries in England at the time. Judges could issue a writ, de ventre inspiciendo (to inspect the belly), to impanel these female jurors, as women were viewed as “experts” in the field of child bearing. In Mary’s case, the matron jurors returned after a mere hour with their verdict: not pregnant.

Almost a century after Mary’s trial-by-matrons, the 19^th amendment was passed in the United States, allowing women the right to vote. Still, in most states, women were not permitted to serve on juries. What followed were state by state battles where women fought for the right to sit on a jury. In 1946 the Supreme Court held in Ballard v. United States that women were allowed to serve on federal juries. Mississippi was the last state to change its law—in 1968.

            By 2013, one seasoned jury consultant set out to build for his client a twenty-first century “Jury of Matrons.” Robert Hirschhorn, a jury consultant with decades of experience, worked for months to help George Zimmerman’s defense team pick an entirely female jury. His reasoning was that “women would be less judgemental [sic] in a self-defense case where lawyers would be asking them to put themselves in the position Zimmerman found himself when he killed Trayvon.” The media chimed in at the news of an all-female jury: “Will women sympathize with someone who claimed to be in fear for his life? Two of the female jurors themselves own guns for self-defense. Will they sympathize with the tragic loss of a teenage son? Five of the jurors are mothers.” Ultimately, the jury of six women acquitted Zimmerman, sparking protests throughout the country. 

            For the past few decades, it seemed like an all-female jury would be something to be celebrated as a milestone in and of itself. Scholarly articles have focused on the hard-fought right of women to serve on juries despite multiple hurdles, including peremptory challenges based on sex. However, when an all-female jury is sought after merely to render a verdict in conformity with gender-based stereotypes, it is not only harmful to our perception of women as independent thinkers, it’s just plain wrong. Social scientists have found differences in female and male jurors based on their evaluations of evidence, communication styles, and participation rates within the context of jury service. All of this is relevant to the practicing attorney or legal scholar. What should no longer be as relevant is the traditional, age-old notion of the woman as sympathetic mother, or “matron.”

As for Mary Wright, after the verdict of the jury of matrons, the court allowed doctors to examine her. They found that she was five months along. She eventually delivered a healthy daughter.