molestation

The State of Alabama filed a complaint for paternity and child support against J. E. B. on behalf of T. B., the mother of a minor child, in the District Court of Jackson County, Alabama. On October 21, 1991, the matter was called for trial and jury selection began with a panel of 36 potential jurors, 12 males and 24 females. After the court excused three jurors for cause, only 10 of the remaining 33 jurors were male. The State then used 9 of its 10 peremptory strikes to remove male jurors, while petitioner used all but one of his strikes to remove female jurors, resulting in an all-female jury. Before the jury was empaneled, petitioner objected to the State's peremptory challenges on the ground that they were exercised against male jurors solely on the basis of gender. The court rejected the objection and empaneled the all-female jury, which found petitioner to be the father of the child and ordered him to pay child support. On postjudgment motion, the court reaffirmed its ruling. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment at 606 So. 2d 156 (1992), and the Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari at 508 U. S. 905 (1993) to resolve the question of whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids peremptory challenges on the basis of gender.

The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.

In October 1984, Sandra Ann Craig was charged in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, with child abuse, first- and second-degree sexual offenses, perverted sexual practice, and battery. The named victim in each count was a six-year-old girl who had attended a kindergarten and day-care center owned and operated by Craig. Before trial, the State moved to invoke Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 9-102(a)(1)(ii) (1989). That statute permits a judge to receive the one-way closed-circuit television testimony of an alleged child victim in a child-abuse case upon a finding that live, in-court testimony would cause the child serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate. At a December 12, 1985 hearing, the trial court heard expert testimony that the named victim and three other children expected to testify would suffer serious emotional distress if required to testify in the defendant's presence. The trial court further found that the children would not be able to communicate effectively with the jury or the court in the defendant's presence. The trial court made individualized findings and therefore permitted the four children to testify via one-way closed-circuit television from a separate room. Craig was convicted on all counts. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.