Document: 377 U.S. 129 84 S.Ct. 1152 12 L.Ed.2d 190 John COLEMAN, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ALABAMA. No. 583. Argued Mar h 25, 1964. Decided May 4, Michael C. Meltsner, New York City, for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Leslie Hall, Montgomery, Ala., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion 1 The a Negro convicted and sentenced to death murdering white man, attacks his conviction as violative Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that, result long-established practice in county conviction, Negroes were arbitrarily systematically excluded from sitting on grand jury which indicted him petit him. State answers that claim comes too late, having been asserted first time motion new trial. Code Ala. (1958 Recomp.), Tit. 15, §§ 278, 279; Ball v. State, 252 686, 689, 42 So.2d 626, 629. Admittedly, point was not raised until filing trial, but trial judge permitted petitioner proceed motion. However, sustained objections all questions concerning alleged discrimination denied Supreme Court Alabama affirmed finding petitioner's supported any evidence. We granted certiorari, 375 893, 177, 11 123. 2 Petitioner degree murder mechanic, apparent motive being robbery. There no witnesses killing evidence guilt circumstantial, based largely upon expert testimony given State's toxicologist. represented court-appointed counsel at he obtained after conviction. In 'Negroes qualified service Greene County, are arbitrarily, intentionally duty violation rights privileges guaranteed defendant Amendment United States Constitution.' 3 does attack reasonableness Alabama's procedural requirement composition juries must be made before Nor question validity such procedures state ground refusal consider might based. this case hearing call two Circuit Solicitors prove allegations discrimination. Nonetheless, systematic prior trial.1 On automatic appeal found had afforded 'an opportunity adduce exclusion * *.' it further 'none introduced other than an affidavit appellant's mother her son composed men, tried twelve men.' 4 It appears clear which, if proved, would entitle Arnold North Carolina, 376 773, 1032 (1964); Eubanks Louisiana, 356 584, 78 970, 991 (1958); Reece Georgia, 350 85, 76 167, 100 L.Ed. 77 (1955); Hernandez Texas, 347 475, 74 667, 98 866 (1954); Strauder West Virginia, 303, 25 664 (1879). Here failed raise issue trial; Court, apparently acting under enlightened procedure its appeals statute,2 did base affirmance considered merits held met burden establishing racial court concluded: 5 'No sufficient proof produced or proceedings, is appellant may now complain. Therefore, we left doubt rolls County well taken.' Exercising discretion permit decided constitutional merits. judgment, therefore, 'rested Court's conclusion resulting sentence disregard protections secured Constitution States.' Irvin Dowd, 359 394, 404, 79 825, 831, 900 (1959). Since here posture record shows offer support claim, judgment fall. As Carter 177 442, 20 687, 44 839 (1900), where 'the mere tender issue, unaccompanied supporting *,' reverse 'offered introduce witnesses, declined hear subject 172 448—449, 690, 839. 6 ligh these considerations, entitled have day case. therefore reversed remanded proceedings inconsistent with opinion. 7 Reversed remanded. 'ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: I can ask whether law complied with? 'COURT: Yes. fact with, general question, will sustain objection because courts repeatedly, States, you go into those matters unless they properly during some thereto. That reason asked before. Boggs familiar it. But like get one purpose taking exception You questions, ill them. 'Q. Boggs, present when Grand Jury, Johnny Coleman, convened, not? 'A. was. How many persons jury? Eighteen. Were negroes 'SOLICITOR: object please illegal mode raising should quash indictment. Sustain objection. want more then won't ask—two more, your Honor. there defendant? venire taken advantage matter. objection.' § 382(10): 'Hearing determination appellate court.—In cases consider, discretion, seriously prejudicial appellant, thereon even though lawful shall consideration verdict so decidedly contrary great weight wrong unjust had, enter order reversal grant effect presented below.'

Category: 1