Opinion ID: 386882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sequence of Grand Juries

Text: 36 Apart from the statistical disparities discussed above, Barksdale relies on the sequence of blacks actually serving on Orleans Parish grand juries to prove his discrimination claim. 28 Barksdale's expert testified that the sequence of black grand jurors serving from September 1958 to September 1962 had such a low probability of occurring by chance as to be non-random. The state's expert utilized different statistical tests to arrive at his conclusion that the sequence was consistent with a hypothesis of randomness. The district court came to a conclusion we cannot deem erroneous: Faced with totally opposing views of competent and qualified experts, this Court finds that the petitioner as to the grand jury has failed to carry his burden of proving invidious racial discrimination based on statistical improbability alone. Moreover, even if accepted, the contention of Barksdale's expert that the grand jurors were not selected randomly proves nothing about racial discrimination. Of course Parish grand jurors were not randomly selected; it is not so contended by the state. The grand jury was selected conscientiously and nonrandomly by the judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, pursuant to Louisiana statute. The judges testified that they sought to select the best qualified jurors from a venire that, according to Louisiana law, was composed only of citizens possessing specified levels of competence. These same judges testified that, while they did not intentionally exclude blacks from the grand jury, they sought to avoid reducing black representation from the jury venire to the actual grand jury. Presented with a venire in 1962 that was between 16.64 and 19.43% black, it is not surprising that a judge who sought to avoid reduction in black participation would select two black grand jurors on a twelve-man jury. Several of the judges testified that they had to make special efforts to find at least two blacks who were eligible to serve and did not have to be excused because of occupation or hardship. This court should be especially careful not to ascribe invidious motivations to a group of judges who, as noted by the panel majority, were not taking race into account when they granted excuses in order to reduce the proposed petit venire to the final petit venire. 610 F.2d at 268. Unfortunately, neither expert squarely addressed the key question: does the sequence of grand juries conclusively prove that the jury selection process intentionally excluded blacks from the grand juries? The answer to that question must be no, because the concept of nonrandomness is every bit as consistent with nonrandom efforts to include blacks as it is with efforts to exclude blacks.