Opinion ID: 386882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is Guilt Irrelevant?9

Text: 11 On this appeal, Barksdale raises only one issue, alleging that the jury system in Orleans Parish systematically excluded blacks from grand jury and petit jury service. Several analytical steps must be taken before this broad issue can be determined, however. Initially it must be determined whether Barksdale proved a prima facie case of jury discrimination. At issue in that determination will be not only how much of a disparity exists between the eligible black population and actual black representation on juries, but also how much of a disparity is needed to prove the case and what statistical measures of population and jury representation are appropriate. Once a prima facie case has been proved, it must be determined whether the state effectively rebutted that case. Here it will be necessary to examine whether the Orleans Parish system of excusing certain workers on request was a constitutionally permissible means of rebuttal in light of Labat v. Bennett, supra, and related cases. 12 A preliminary matter is suggested by the fact that Barksdale has never made, and could never make, any colorable claim that he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. As Justice Powell stated in his concurring opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 257-58, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2063, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), the central reason for habeas corpus is the affording of means, through an extraordinary writ, of redressing an unjust incarceration. One can legitimately question whether freeing a petitioner who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime furthers that central concern. 13 We are mindful, however, that recently in Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 99 S.Ct. 2993, 61 L.Ed.2d 739 (1979), Justice Blackmun wrote in Part II of his opinion for the Court that a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman presented an issue cognizable on habeas corpus regardless of the guilt or innocence of the petitioner, and regardless of whether the state had previously granted a full and fair hearing on the petitioner's claim. This was an apparent response to speculation raised by Justice Powell in his dissent in Castaneda where he stated that claims of grand jury discrimination are not cognizable on federal habeas corpus after Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037 (49 L.Ed.2d 1067) (1976). Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 508 n.1, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1287 n.1, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). However, Part II of Justice Blackmun's opinion was joined by only two justices who joined in the judgment of the Court and by two dissenters (Justices White and Stevens), leading Justice Powell to question its precedential value for not all of the four Members who join it support even the Court's judgment. Rose v. Mitchell, supra, 443 U.S. at 582, n.3, 99 S.Ct. at 3014 n.3 (Powell, J., concurring). Since the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2923 n.15, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), Justice Powell's point is well taken. Even if one considers Part II to be a part of the Court's holding, it may not be dispositive of this case. Justice Blackmun's opinion primarily addresses the contention of Justice Jackson, dissenting in Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 298, 70 S.Ct. 629, 637, 94 L.Ed. 839 (1950), that discrimination in grand jury selection, absent petit jury discrimination, should never result in reversal of a conviction. Rose v. Mitchell, supra, 443 U.S. at 552, 99 S.Ct. at 2998. It might very well still be an open question whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case, such grand jury discrimination might be harmless error. If ever there was a case in which harmless error should apply it is this one, in which the grand jury did include two blacks, in which the grand and petit jury selection occurred at a time when great progress was being made in eradicating jury discrimination in Louisiana, in which the evidence was so overwhelming that no grand jury, no matter how selected and constituted, could fail to indict, and in which no serious claim of innocence has ever been raised. 14 Whatever the precedential value of Part II of Justice Blackmun's opinion in Rose, it may not be the final word on the subject. As Justice Powell noted in his concurrence: 15 Whenever a federal court is called upon by a state prisoner to issue a writ of habeas corpus, it is asked to do two things that should be undertaken only with restraint and respect for the way our system of justice is structured. First, as one court of general jurisdiction it is requested to entertain a collateral attack upon the final judgment of another court of general jurisdiction. Second, contrary to principles of federalism, a lower federal court is asked to review not only a state trial court's judgment, but almost invariably the judgment of the highest court of the State as well. These considerations prompt one to inquire, more critically than this Court ever has, whether it is appropriate to allow the use of habeas corpus by state prisoners who do not seek to protect their personal interest in the justness of their convictions. 16 Rose v. Mitchell, supra, 443 U.S. at 579-80, 99 S.Ct. at 3012 (footnote omitted). The use of habeas corpus to free guilty prisoners who had a fair and accurate trial is indeed troublesome. In the present case, however, we need not rest on the inappropriateness of habeas corpus since we find that Barksdale's claims do not prevail on the merits. 10