Document: 523 U.S. 392118 S.Ct. 1419140 L.Ed.2d 551 Terry CAMPBELL, Petitioner,v.LOUISIANA. No. 96-1584. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 20, 1998. Decided April 21, Syllabus * A grand jury in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, indicted petitioner Campbell for second-degree murder. In light evidence that, prior 16 1/2 years, no black person had served as foreperson Parish even though more than 20 percent registered voters were black, filed a motion to quash indictment on ground that his was constituted violation Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement. The trial judge denied because Campbell, white man accused killing another man, lacked standing complain about exclusion persons from serving forepersons. He convicted, but Louisiana Appeal ordered an evidentiary hearing, holding could object alleged discrimination under Powers v. Ohio, 499 400, 111 1364, 113 411, defendant challenge racial against use peremptory challenges. reversing, State declined extend claim such Campbell's. It also found he not afforded raise objection by Hobby States, 468 339, 104 3093, 82 260, which held relief be granted if been violated selection federal whose duties purely "ministerial.'' Noting foreperson's role similarly ministerial, court any little, any, effect Campbell's right fundamental fairness. Held: 1.A criminal has requisite objections jurors. Pp. ____-____. (a) This case must treated one alleging discriminatory jurors, just foreperson. system most using juries, is selected ranks already seated contrast, selects venire before remaining members are chosen lot. addition other duties, same full voting powers members. As result, when foreperson, member outside drawing used compose balance body. P. ____. (b) like defendant, Powers, supra, jury. excluded jurors' own discriminatorily service can asserted satisfies three preconditions third-party outlined at S.Ct., 1370-1371. First, regardless skin color, suffers significant "injury fact'' jury's composition tainted discrimination. integrity body's decisions depends select If infected with discrimination, doubt cast over fairness all subsequent decisions. See Rose Mitchell, 443 545, 555-556, 99 2993, 2999-3000, 61 739. rejects State's argument harm inflicted single juror based prejudice invisible jurors panel, only becomes apparent pattern emerges course years. underestimates seriousness allegations here: they true, impartiality discretion himself would called into question. Second, "close relationship'' who share him common interest eradicating process, vital asserting their conviction may overturned result. See, e.g., U.S., 413-414, 1372-1373. tenuous connection past confuses underlying claim-that jury-with needed prove it-that situated venirepersons previous cases account intentional Third, given economic burdens litigation small financial reward available, race little incentive sue vindicate rights. id., 415, 1373. (c) litigate whether procured means or procedures contravene process. Hobby, 350, 3099, proceeded implied assumption exists. Court's reading foreclosing inconsistent implicit explicit reasoning Hobby. different kind degree there issue it implicates impermissible appointment What concerns performance ministerial duty preside, juror, namely charge significance this distinction acknowledged 348, 3098. By its terms, then, does address 2.The declines claim. Neither appellate courts discussed contention, made effort meet burden showing properly presented those courts. Adams Robertson, 520 83, ----, 117 1028, 137 203 (per curiam). 673 So.2d 1061, reversed remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion unanimous respect Parts I, II, IV, V, Part III, REHNQUIST, C.J., STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, concurring part dissenting part, SCALIA, Dmitrc I. Burnes, Alexandria, LA, petitioner. Richard Ieyoub, Baton Rouge, respondent. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 We decide Finding claims, we reverse remand. 2 count white, timely pretrial grounds longstanding practice forepersons Parish. His sole piece between January 1976 August 1993, persons. Brief Petitioner 16. dispute evidence. refused "Campbell, being man,'' "where white.'' App. Pet. Cert. G-33. 3 After first resulted mistrial, retried, convicted murder, sentenced life prison without possibility parole. renewed new trial, denied. I-2. reversed, because, our decision 411 (1991), white. 651 412 (1995). remanded hearing inadequate. Id., 413. 4 reversed. distinguished turning "considerable substantial impact'' prosecutor's challenges defendant's well judicial system. 661 1321, 1324 260 (1984), did afford objection. turned nature " [t]he foreman appears ministerial'' "has fairness.'' So.2d, 1324. Because addressed points error, case. rejected reconsider ruling issue. 685 140 (1997). certiorari narrow question protection, claims. 521 118 29, 138 1059 II 5 initial matter, note complains foreperson; alleges shaped itself. S. Beale, W. Bryson, J. Felman & M. Elston, Grand Jury Law Practice §4:6, p. 4-20 4-21 (2d ed.1997) (either fellow elect her). Under systems, title "foreperson'' bestowed existing change composition. have La.Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 413(B) (West Supp.1997); see 4-22, n. 11 (Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia similar Louisiana's). These considerations require us treat III 6 Standing often turns imprecise distinctions requires difficult line drawing. On occasion, however, ascertain relative ease applying rules established cases. Allen Wright, 737, 751, 3315, 3324-3325, 556 (1984). instance. 7 determined Recognizing general reluctance permit litigant assert third party, satisfied: (1) suffered fact''; (2) jurors; (3) some hindrance 1370-1371 (citing Singleton Wulff, 428 106, 96 2868, 49 826 (1976)). concluded serious injury fact voir dire stage ""casts process' . places proceeding doubt.'' 1371. cloud deprives certainty verdict "is accordance law fair.'' 413, 1372. close relationship: They eliminating serve effective advocate victory result overturning conviction. "a dismissed probably will leave courtroom possessing set arduous rights.'' Upon consideration these factors, bring petit 8 Although rather Powers' applies standing. Our decided do need seeks well-established basis race. Tr. 9 (Dec. 2, 1993); Carter Comm'n Greene Cty., 396 320, 329-330, 90 518, 523-524, 24 549 (1970) (racial prospective violates constitutional rights). Powers. Regardless her [D]iscrimination strikes values system'' central component justice 556, 3000, 739 (1979). Fifth Federal Government initiate prosecution, 22 adopt rule matter state law. §1:2, 1-3; Hurtado California, 110 516, 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (Fifth requirement binding States). jury, "acts check wrongful exercise power prosecutors.'' controls indict, how many counts greater lesser offense, including important capital crime. Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 263, 106 617, 623-624, 88 598 (1986). Rose, 2999-3000 ("Selection destroys appearance thereby casts process''). 10 emphasized prosecutor discriminates striking minorities open front entire pool. expressed concern tactic might encourage lawless actions. 412-413, 1371-1372. suggests sort panel; Respondent argument, allegations. motivated prejudice, responsible fate, shown actual bias. If, here two establish satisfied trouble. find reason why less juror's Vasquez, 264, 623-624; 551, 2997-2998; Cassell Texas, 339 282, 70 629, 94 839 (1950). contends "the class years tenuous, best.'' 22. it. To case, so treatment cases, Castaneda Partida, 430 482, 494, 97 1272, 1280, 51 498 (1977), mean venirepersons' final disincentives IV 12 axiomatic explore extent confine Peters Kiff question, although majority Justices agree comprehensive statement appropriate remedy violation. 407 493, 504, 92 2163, 2169, 33 83 (1972) (opinion Marshall, J.) (" [W]hatever race, arbitrarily excludes denies law''); 507, 2170 (White, joined Brennan Powell, judgment) [T]he strong statutory policy [18 U.S.C.] §243, reflects Amendment'' permits selection). recent skipped ahead available. 3099. unnecessary discuss context selection. That issue, still upon earlier precedents, should merits, assuming finds necessary reach point concomitant relevant here, 13 erred foreclose challenge. infringe principles 345-346, 3096-3097. too, then couched terms lack 14 wrong both counts. Its interpretation noted pick another, least arguably, affected regular juror. ----. Against background, individual post significantly invades'' 346, 3097. 15 Hobby's discussion assumed 3000. involved Tennessee's Tennessee effect, random, appointed 13th 347, 3097-3098. pointed out much former affect whereas latter cannot: "So long itself constituted, risk distort overall array otherwise taint operation process.'' V One questions raised fair cross-section neither nor contention. "With "very rare exceptions,' consider petitioner's unless either by, to, rendered asked review.'' 1029, (1997) courts, after omission 29-30. fact, devotes page text brief 31-32. decline 17 judgment further proceedings opinion. 18 ordered. 19 whom SCALIA joins, part. I fail understand blacks vindicated letting murderer go free. Yet, violations Today's decision, merely reaffirming misguided doctrine standing, rationales inapplicable. incorrect inapposite hand, respectfully dissent join concur reversing remanding 21 broke time exclude 422, 1377 (SCALIA, dissenting) (explaining vast body clear statement'' precedents). denied, veniremen 410-416, 1370-1374. "third party standing'' criteria met: relation'' "some hindrance'' ability protect interests. 410-411, distorted overruled.1 explained length dissent, satisfy element standing-injury fact. 426-429, 1379-1381 (dissenting opinion). certainly displeased conviction, failed demonstrate outcome trial. instead "cognizable'' process''' "invites cynicism respecting neutrality obligation adhere law.'' 411-412, But severity perception unfairness constitute Indeed, ""[i]njury perception' seem very antithesis fact.''' 427, 1379 dissenting). Furthermore, party's reversal rights, obtaining person's Fourth not. 429, 1380-81 23 rested relation[ship]'' arises them "to relation, bond trust,'' continues throughout 1370-1371, According Court, accused's strike inflicts venireman "profound personal humiliation heightened public character.'' simply finding "common interest,'' 1372, defendants. wish particular Surely dismayed learn venireman's overturn conviction.2 Finally, obstacles suit veniremen, costs individually difficulty establishing likelihood recurrence. 414-415, obstacles, perhaps present Batson context, alone insufficient justify 25 Even justifications persuasive, wholly inapplicable involves allegedly absent hand. reasoned repeated "overt wrong, panel,'' threatened "cas[t] parties, indeed cause.'' 412, Here, foreman, random. discriminatory, judge's (rather exclusion) hardly "overt'' remainder proceedings, therefore resorts emphasizing allegation (as repetition conveys talismanic power), course, cannot substitute 26 unlike unsupported; directly foreclosed. There Instead, (and member). guilt beyond reasonable way played actions, five twelve eliminate venire. Petitioner's attempt injured belied stage. 27 avail suggest caused improperly rendered, conclusively establishes indict petitioner.3 Nor support precedents allowing selection, defendants' assertions (1979); cause-and-effect relationship procedural illegality asserts denial 427-428, 1379-1380 (Scalia, (noting government generally bears harmlessness errors), foremost evidenced lengths went (an ambient fraternity sorts) likewise unsupported. never identifies precisely vindicate. Is foreman? non-white veniremen? All Or ultimately jury? Leaving aside fails identify rights-holders, developed veniremen. "bond,'' develop defendants during dire, foreman-a plays role. arise latter, strikes, Parish's selecting foremen action Rather, (all one) left take chances randomly seats 29 ample opportunities relying them. contrast where alone, systematic Such provides large potential plaintiffs opportunity declaratory injunctive prevent violations. 30 For reasons, hold petitioner-who discriminated others trial-lacks Accordingly, judgment. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 287, 50 499. elsewhere, following Kentucky, 476 79, 1712, 69 (1986) (holding Equal Protection Clause strikes), societal Constitution regulate traditionally discretionary doctrine, helping ensure trials, serves undercut expense traditional protections accorded races. Georgia McCollum, 505 42, 60-62, 112 2348, 2359-2361, 120 (1992) (THOMAS, judgment). Of sense dismay reason, unlikely prevail merits However, conclusion right. addresses extent'' Ante, __.

Category: 1