We found no constitutional infirmity in the statute, noting a state has the authority “to grant exemptions from jury service to individuals in case of special hardship or incapacity and to those engaged in particular occupations the uninterrupted performance of which is critical to the community.” Id. at 782 (quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 534, 95 S.Ct. at 700, 42 L.Ed.2d at 700). We find it unnecessary here, as well, to decide whether farmers are a distinctive group for Sixth Amendment purposes. We think the unique requirements of their occupation justify the limited exemption from jury service allowed by the Webster County court attendant. A farmer’s livelihood depends upon timing. There is a narrow window of opportunity to plant crops under the right conditions and harvest 234 (1981) (<HOLDING>); cf Young, 853 P.2d at 340 (holding statute
holding statute empowering judge to excuse potential jurors was violated by board of supervisors action in exempting persons residing in a certain geographical area of district from serving on jury trial held in another part of district holding that the defendant was not prejudiced when the jurors saw him being searched where the jurors themselves had been frisked holding statute allowing court to excuse jurors from jury duty and defining court as a judge was violated when clerk excused jurors without obtaining court approval of the excuses granted holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias