Source: https://openjurist.org/407/us/493
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:19:32+00:00

Document:
discrimination. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 495—507.
5 Cir., 441 F.2d 370, reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL, joined by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr.
in the list of questions presented by the writ of certiorari. Pp.
petit jury service. Pp. 496—505.
Mr. Justice WHITE, joined by Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr.
jury that indicted him. Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 62 S.Ct.
1159, 86 L.Ed. 1559. P. 507.
Edward T. M. Garland, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Dorothy T. Beasley, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
not apply in a state prosecution. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S.
protection and of due process.
on the circumstances of the person making the claim.
establish a basis for relief.
under that single analytical umbrella.
excluded jurors and the stigmatized class.
Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 90 S.Ct.
and impartial tribunal in administrative hearings, Goldberg v.
due process, be subjected to trial by an insane juror, Jordan v.
violence, Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 43 S.Ct. 265, 67 L.Ed.
532 (1971); and in pre-Duncan state jury trials, e.g., Turner v.
unfairness.' 349 U.S., at 136, 75 S.Ct. at 625.
cases, and they increase the risk of actual bias as well.
challenge the tribunal on that ground could be similarly confined.
the entire fabric of our society.
exclusion of Negroes has relevance only for issues involving race.
many defendants, rather than giving it to too few.
For Congress has made such exclusion a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 243.
djQ Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr.
Justice POWELL join, concurring in the judgment.
from jury service on grounds of race in a class by themselves.
discrimination.' Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 282—283, 67 S.Ct.
1613, 1624, 91 L.Ed. 2043 (1947).
the standard governing criminal proceedings instituted hereafter.
Hence, I join the judgment of the Court.
Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissenting.
direct appeal, and the case was remanded for a new trial.
juries. His conviction was affirmed.
equal opportunity to participate in the administration of justice.
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 308, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880).
officials are subject to criminal penalties. 18 U.S.C. § 243.
U.S. 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 725, 731, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).
(1967); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed.
Strauder v. West Virginia, supra, at 309. See also Gibson v.
L.Ed. 354 (1883); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 386, 26 L.Ed.
92 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972).
contempt charge. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct.
U.S., at 517—518, 88 S.Ct. at 1774, 20 L.Ed.2d 776.
See also Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 280—281, 67 S.Ct.
white defendants in nonracial criminal poceedings.
petitioner was convicted by a prejudiced tribunal.
dictum in Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S.
statutory command. See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed.
discriminatory jury selection has taken place in the past.
The history of this litigation is long and complicated.
properly does not press it here.
See Brief for Appellee in Court of Appeals 28—43.
is subject to challenge only by a member of the excluded class.
never since then approved or rejected it.
S.Ct. 153, 11 L.Ed.2d 110 (1964); Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U.S.
306 U.S. 354, 59 S.Ct. 536, 83 L.Ed. 757 (1939); Rogers v.
v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442, 20 S.Ct. 687, 44 L.Ed. 839 (1900); Bush v.
Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110, 1 S.Ct. 625, 27 L.Ed. 354 (1883).7 Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed.
L.Ed.2d 599 (1967); Coleman v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 129, 84 S.Ct.
58 S.Ct. 753, 82 L.Ed. 1050 (1938); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S.
587, 55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074 (1935); Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S.
316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S.
systematic exclusion of Negroes from his grand and petit juries.
jury service of his own or any other class. E.g., Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 83—87, 62 S.Ct. 457, 470—473, 86 L.Ed.
simply standing to challenge it.
S.E.2d 711, 715 (1964) (alternative holding).
of fundamental, constitutional rights, see, e.g., Johnson v.
apply with respect to statutory rights.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 243
 v. 
 v. 
 § 243
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.