opinion: LEE v. MISSOURI
  No. 77-6066.
  Decided January 15, 1979
  Together with No. 77-6068, Minor v. Missouri, also on certiorari to, and No. 77-6553, Arrington v. Missouri, on appeal from, the same court, and No. 77-6701, Burnfin v. Missouri, and No. 77-7012, Combs v. Missouri, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City District.
  Per Curiam.
  The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted.
  In each of these cases, the trial court denied a timely motion to quash the petit jury panel. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed on the basis of State v. Duren, 556 S. W. 2d 11 (Mo. 1977). State v. Lee, 556 S. W. 2d 25 (Mo. 1977) ; State v. Minor, 556 S. W. 2d 35 (Mo. 1977); State v. Arrington, 559 S. W. 2d 749 (Mo. 1978); State v. Burnfin, 560 S. W. 2d 283 (Mo. App. 1977); State v. Combs, 564 S. W. 2d 328 (Mo. App. 1978).
  We reversed the decision below in Duren because of inconsistency with the principles enunciated in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975). Ante, p. 357. The State of Missouri has urged that our decision in Duren not be applied retroactively to petitioners or appellants other than Duren himself. However, because that decision does not announce any “new standards” of constitutional law not evident from the decision in Taylor v. Louisiana, the considerations that have led us in other cases to depart from full retroactive application of constitutional holdings, see, e. g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 297 (1967), are inapplicable to juries sworn after the decision in Taylor v. Louisiana. Compare Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U. S. 31 (1975), holding Taylor v. Louisiana inapplicable to cases in which the jury was sworn prior to the date of that decision.
  We note that in any case in which a jury was sworn subsequent to Taylor v. Louisiana and the fair-cross-section claim based on exclusion of. women was rejected on direct review or in state collateral proceedings because of the defendant’s failure to assert the claim in timely fashion, relief is unavailable under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 unless the petitioner can show cause for having failed to raise his claim properly in the state courts. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977).
  The petitions for certiorari in Nos. 77-6066, 77-6068, 77-6701, and 77-7012 are granted. The judgments below in those cases, together with that in No. 77-6553, are vacated, and the cases are remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, ante, p. 357.
  So ordered.
  [For opinion of Mr. Justice Powell concurring in the judgments, see ante, p. 460.]
  Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the type of decision made by the court among the following: Consider "opinion of the court (orally argued)" if the court decided the case by a signed opinion and the case was orally argued. For the 1791-1945 terms, the case need not be orally argued, but a justice must be listed as delivering the opinion of the Court. Consider "per curiam (no oral argument)" if the court decided the case with an opinion but without hearing oral arguments. For the 1791-1945 terms, the Court (or reporter) need not use the term "per curiam" but rather "The Court [said],""By the Court," or "By direction of the Court." Consider "decrees" in the infrequent type of decisions where the justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. This type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. Consider "equally divided vote" for cases decided by an equally divided vote, for example when a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy. Consider "per curiam (orally argued)" if no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion and the case was orally argued. Consider "judgment of the Court (orally argued)" for formally decided cases (decided the case by a signed opinion) where less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion.