Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321204441/Joseph-Clemmie-Moultrie-v-Joseph-R-Martin-Warden-690-F-2d-1078-4th-Cir-1982
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:19:01+00:00

Document:
Joseph R. MARTIN, Warden, et al., Appellees.
Dennis N. Balske, Montgomery, Ala. (Charles B. Macloskie, Beaufort, S.
C., on brief), for appellant.
Lindy P. Funkhouser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, S. C. (Daniel R.
McLeod, Atty. Gen., Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellees.
grand jury which indicted him. Moultrie's claim is based wholly on statistics.
people on the Colleton County grand jury each year. Id. 14-7-1510 to 1560.
"Data for the years 1971-75, for what it is worth, is presented nevertheless."
a significant period of time." Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 494, 97 S.Ct.
because that is the first year about which petitioner offered evidence.
Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 88 S.Ct. 4, 19 L.Ed.2d 25 (1967); Whitus v.
671). See Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074) (1935).
supports the presumption of discrimination raised by the statistical showing.
Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 494-95, 97 S.Ct. at 1280 (footnote omitted).
underrepresentation over a significant period of time, is more difficult to prove.
period, with an average of 22%.
evidence of what the true figures were although they were readily available.
other grand jury cases. 430 U.S. at 495-96, 97 S.Ct. at 1280-1281.
be mathematically significant to a statistician and thus in court. Id. at 496-97 n.
student's t distribution. See fn. 10 infra.
Probability & Statistics in Engineering Science, 235-37 (1972); F. Mosteller, R.
Rourke & G. Thomas, Probability with Statistical Applications, 302-05 (2d ed.
Harv.L.Rev. 338, 349-53 (1967) (hereinafter Finkelstein).
weight to statistical differences which are actually mathematically insignificant.
find that the actual and expected percentages differ by 2.0 standard deviations.
blacks. See table fn. 11, infra.
demonstrated a prima facie case from the limited evidence he has offered.
discrimination merits affirmance, although we do so for a different reason.
S.E.C. v. Chenery, 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943).
within five miles or more than five miles from the courthouse.
significant at a 95% confidence level.
which is being investigated (i.e. the percentage of blacks on the voting rolls).
called the standard error. Id. at 308.
will be used in the balance of this opinion.
relevant in determining the existence of discrimination. E.g., United States v.
& Hays, supra, at xv.
then the petitioner's already weak statistical case would have been even weaker.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.