Document: 420 U.S. 28 95 S.Ct. 749 42 L.Ed.2d 786 John E. TEST, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 73—5993. Argued Dec. 11, 1974. Decided Jan. 27, 1975. Walter L. Gerash, Denver, Colo., for petitioner. William Patton, Boston, Mass., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner was convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) distribution of a hallucinogenic drug commonly known as LSD. Prior to trial he filed motion dismiss his indictment claiming that the master lists1 from which grand jury had been, and petit would be, selected systematically excluded disproportionate numbers people with Spanish surnames, students, balcks. These exclusions, petitioner alleged, violated both Sixth Amendment right an impartial provisions Jury Selection Service Act 1968, 1861 et seq. Attached this affidavit by petitioner's counsel stating facts been disclosed testimony at challenge in another case, claimed supported challenge. Also accompanying requesting permission inspect copy lists 'pertaining juries instant indictment.' asserted inspection necessary discovering evidence buttress claims. 2 The District Court rejected denied lists. renewed claims before Appeals Tenth Circuit but court affirmed conviction without discussing these issues. We granted certiorari decide whether required be permitted 417 967, 3170, 41 1138. 3 In its brief oral argument Court, United States has agreed erroneously access urges us remand case. also agree petitioner.2 Section 1867(f) Act, relevant part, provides: 4 'The contents records or papers used commission clerk connection selection process shall not disclosed, except . may preparation presentation (challenging compliance procedures) section. parties case allowed inspect, reproduce, such all reasonable times during pendency motion. .' (Emphasis supplied.) 5 This provision makes clear litigant3 essentially unqualified lists.4 It grants order aid 'preparation' motions challenging jury-selection procedures. Indeed, inspection, party almost invariably unable determine potentially meritorious Thus, is only plain text statute, statute's overall purpose insuring 'grand random fair cross section community.' 1861. 6 Since opportunity lists, we vacate judgment instructions so attempt support express no views on merits 7 ordered. were based Colorado voter-registration records. further argues established prima facie exclusion thereby entitling him 1867(d). conclude do counsel's sufficient establish statute rights procedures defendant criminal any civil does limit 'reasonable times.' No issue timeliness raised Court.

Category: 0