Legal Document

339 U.S. 282 70 Supreme Court Reporter 629 94 L.Ed. 839 CASSELLv.STATE OF TEXAS. Number 46. Argued Nov. 10, 1949. Decided April 24, 1950. Mr. Chris Dixie, Houston, Tex., for petitioner. Joe R. Greenhill, respondent. Justice REED announced the judgment of and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK CLARK concurred. 1 Review was sought this case to determine whether there had been a violation by Texas petitioner's federal constitutional right fair impartial grand jury. The question raised motion quash indictment on ground that petitioner, Negro, suffered unconstitutional discrimination through selection white men only jury indicted him. After full hearing, trial court denied motion, action sustained Criminal Appeals affirming conviction. Cassell versus State, 216 South Western Reporter, 2nd Series 813. 2 accepted rule Negro is equal protection laws when he from Negroes as race have intentionally excluded. supra, 819; Neal State Delaware, 103 370, 394, 26 567; Smith Texas, 311 128, 130, 61 164, 165, 85 84; Hill 316 400, 404, 62 1159, 1161, 86 1559; Akins 325 398, 403, 65 1276, 1279, 89 1692. It examination facts deduced its conclusion racial not practiced. Since result reached may deny right, we reexamine petitioner has proof his allegation discrimination.1 Certiorari granted, 336 943, 69 805, consider claim were omitted list jurymen either because deliberate limitation Dallas County commissioners, or failure commissioners acquaint themselves with available Negroes. 3 Acting under statutes,2 grand-jury chose sixteen males3 September 1947 citizens eligible statute.4 judge twelve these panel.5 No challenge now made fairness statutory system. We approved it.6 4 Petitioner's attack upon way method administered commissioners.7 One charge must practiced proportion jurors less than county's population. Under 1940 census total population 398,564, whom 61,605 Negroes.8 This about 15.5%. In weighing matter custom, limit ourselves, do parties, period between June 1, 1942, decided, November 1947, indicted. There 21 juries period; 252 members panels,9 17, 6.7% But apparent discrepancy be explained fact possess certain qualifications.10 Grand ordinarily vote; eligibility requires payment poll tax;11 validity poll-tax requirement challenged. record shows 5,500 current payers nothing indicates number varied substantially year year.12 corresponding figure all payers, male female, 83,667.13 These figures would indicate proportional 6.5% Negroes, percentage approximating ratio actually sitting panels.14 Without more it cannot said left off panels such degree establish prima facie discrimination.15 5 A different presented next subsequent consecutive lists consistently limited selected service one each contention interpreted allow jury, provided approximately service. judges careful instruct their grounds color forbidden.16 did so here.17 If, notwithstanding caution judges, should proportionally service, violate our Constitution. Jurymen individuals, basis individual qualifications, race. 6 recently written why representation races requisite.18 Succinctly stated, reason Constitution without regard Obviously nationalities appearing ancestry make impossible meet representation. Similarly, since can no exclusion color,19 permissible. That compelled United States Code, Title 18, § 243, 18 Code Annotated KF65 U5 243,20 based Civil Rights Act 1875. While language section directs attention serve juror, command long recognized also assure rights accused. Prohibiting disqualification congressional enactment Fourteenth Amendment, 5,21 held proper accused.22 Proportional therefore forbidden. An accused entitled charges against him considered neither inclusion nor 7 Our holding case, however, another ground. explaining appeared list, they knew none who qualified; at same time those people personally acquainted.23 assumed ordinary activities County, acquaintanceship sufficiently familiar give appointment opportunity know qualifications many individual's are hard ascertain,24 evidence contrary, assume large met requirements service.25 When appointed judicial administrative officials, duty familiarize fairly county color.26 They here, discrimination. repeat recent statement Chief Stone 1559: 'Discrimination arise exclude negroes qualified seek learn any serve. necessarily results where With colored residents literate, absence countervailing testimony, room inference among them householders good moral character, read write, service.' existence kind described does depend systematic continuing over succession commissioners. issue enough direct statements very case. Discrimination proved other ways continued unexplained panels. knew, area up population, prove intentional rights. 8 reversed. 9 Reversed. 10 DOUGLAS took part consideration decision 11 FRANKFURTER, BURTON MINTON join, concurring judgment. 12 settled law 1880 War Amendments barred discriminating juries, petty. As result, conviction stand found kept Pierre Louisiana, 306 354, 59 536, 83 757. ought reverse course decisions standing directed administration justice. context means purposeful, non-inclusion color. 1559. mean various components relevant political unit drawn isolated instance disparity components. 1692; Fay People New York, 332 261, 284, 67 1613, 1625, 91 2043. Assuming pool reflects composition community, if design comes pass particular deprive power define functions turn matters inherently incommensurable into mere arithmetic. withdrawn criminal justice, system part, States. purposefully 13 prohibition disregarded calls ascertainment two kinds issues confused being compendiously called 'facts.' demonstrable, outward events came raise quite inferences what place determining question: purposeful merely symbolic representation, operation honest exercise uncontrolled caprices chance? 14 sit weigh conflicting underlying details, steps taken person rejected taken, names picked blindly chosen disputation really happened. On accept findings court. standards judged. Thereby securing observance fall Court. meaning uncontrovertible relation ultimate precisely pass. See Watts Indiana, 338 49, 50—51, 1347, 1348. Of even this, always claimed disregard Constitution, appropriate respect given And brought 15 If here showed acquainted—just persons unqualified but unavailable, designedly court's validation local procedure prevail. go behind conscientious process, however rough ready To find pragmatic agency supervising forty-eight Such assumption authority jeopardize practical functioning throughout country view great variety minority groups compose society. 16 situation unquestioned showing personal knowledge potentially choice negligibly few known inevitably imply designed affords whatever finding. contrary. 17 disclose stark requiring reversal basis. factor uniform series human intervention, blindness indifference rather impartiality attribute man's purpose. purpose evil intent conscious conceived binding duty. Prohibited conduct misconception requires. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions believe real before us. governing briefly stated. virtue that, despite drawn. five half years drawing challenged, twenty-one panels.1 never Negro. lots clearly lists. Only placed list—he panel—for second after Texas. Again, figured served juror. 405, 1280, Weems 148 Tex.Crim. 154, 157, 185 431, 433, stipulated panel, list. present conceded makes contrary though regarding peculiarly within State's knowledge. background, inconceivable. 19 tender containing lead inescapably systematically discriminated just happen (barring one) unpurposefully reject. County. decline concluding select 20 received instructions 'discriminate,' doubt tried conscientiously abide them. difficulty lies standard discrimination, revealed action. both precluded presence faith guided belief satisfied testimony hearing indictment.2 misconception. require itself arbitrarily one. it. consciously take account. Once restriction freedom devising administering observed, masters own household. charged color, out be. 22 escape below allowable finding go. derives significance undisputed facts. bear rational neutralize well due Court's decisions. 23 compels 24 CLARK, concurring. 25 For reasons stated JACKSON, seems me doubtful original reversed returned indictment. However, think adhere exclusion. am unable conclude date 1559, relied including returning impaneled during period. prepared commissioners' uniformity selections how Even notice three question, reported 1945, 1692, remain sixty-eight whose ascertainable concession counsel. Nor alternatively statistics Any presumption appointed, instructed supervised, intended limitation. review, judge's them, participation account face could infer solely burden permit defendant. Martin 1906, 200 316, 338, 50 497. persuasive 27 difficulties facing illustrated hand told inferred previous one-half years, juries; misconceived requirements. properly token requisite; reach point illegality; permissible 'neither race.' circumstances may, like Job's comforter, add distress writing further. appear responsibility broader understood frankly making discussed personally, school principal inquiry considered. Their 1940, 84. elimination group community deprived safeguards defined concur reversal. 28 dissenting. 29 us convicted murder crushing skull sleeping watchman piece iron pipe carry burglary. guilt. asked order release sole admitted excluded convicted. 30 setting aside conviction, moved desire enforce equality realm where, above all, enforced—in errors defendant's guilt innocence, issue. conflicts principle important law, viz., set affecting substantial 31 weighed competing considerations cases kind. use objections lately much resorted purposes delay, spectacle defendant putting crime discrediting examine practice. I. 32 Amendment afforded opportunities citizens. Moreover, Congress, authorized provide enforcement, enacted 'no citizen possessing prescribed shall disqualified petit juror States, race, condition servitude; * *.' March 1875, chapter 114, 4, Statutes-at-Large 336, 696, KF62 243. 33 substantive thus clear. it? conferred terms citizen. asking himself. He claims gives right—a Two occur justify translating wrong void prejudiced practicable enforcing juries. sustained. II. 34 implemented commanded Courts 'without technical errors, defects, exceptions affect parties.'1 policy manifested provision directing 'shall deemed insufficient, trial, judgment, proceeding thereon affected defect imperfection form only, tend prejudice defendant.';2 fail unqualified, appears concurred indictment.3 35 illegal be, perhaps earlier convictions aside, condemned selecting and, while argument chiefly latter, opinions differentiation, need to. Cf. Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 664; see Bush Commonwealth Kentucky, 107 110, 625, 354; Gibson Mississippi, 162 565, 904, 40 1075; Hale 303 613, 58 753, 82 1050. last alone, discussed. 757; 36 obvious discriminatory does, least Negro's obtained stand. hears sides chooses will believe. deciding, influenced imponderables unconscious prejudices preferences—and thousand things detect isolate verdict influence weigh. single juror's dissent generally prevent chance substance, appearance, impartiality, especially alleged victim not. 37 institution. required all. Hurtado California, 110 516, 292, 232. Its accuse, convict. create guilt; later then beyond reasonable doubt. unanimous. hear prosecution's evidence, problem adversaries. indict unexplained, uncontradicted unsupplemented, warrant so, puts trial. difference function deciding tried. 38 hardly mouth guilty doubt, say attributable prejudice. heard ruled sufficient appellate courts same, further admittedly proved. finding, too, affirmed appeal here. circumstances, frivolous contend constituted, done indict. III. 39 Congress defendants participate service; are, used, effective remedies accomplish '(W)hoever, officer summoning jurors, excludes fails summon citizen' committed subject fine $5,000. 41 'every who, statute, ordinance, regulation, usage, Territory subjects, causes subjected, jurisdiction thereof deprivation rights, privileges, immunities secured laws, liable party injured suit equity, proceedings redress.' 13, 43, 43. (Emphasis supplied.) 42 civil exclusions almost totally neglected Federal Government jurors. Back 1878 state Ex parte 339, 676. allowed solitary enforcement 43 Qualified available, addition, equity. suppose dispel it, class unlawfully maintain injunction mandamus officers responsible. Hague Committee Industrial Organizations, 307 496, 954, 1423; Douglas Jeannette, 319 63 882, 87 1324, 146 American Law Reports 81; Morris Williams, Cir., 149 703; Myerson Samuel, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 315; Roles School Board, 395. evaded disobeyed, imprisonment contempt follow. IV. 44 implicit penal violated. So effect holds offsets start again, death witnesses, loss conditions wrought prevent. 45 toward harmless otherwise refuse put man lawfully 46 unquestionable directly uncompromisingly enforced. run identifying most worthy efforts defer punishment crime. return true bill murderer unless would, harmed. 47 treat irregularity shown harmed defendant, affirm similar cases, send copy Department investigation violations statute prosecution. Norris Alabama, 294 587, 590, 55 579, 580, 79 1074; 358, 538, 272, 1619, Procedure (Vernon, 1948), Arts. 333 340. Id., Article 338. statutes, women 5, Vernon's Ann.St.; Harper 90 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 234 Southwestern KF135 S79 909. 1948): 'Art. 339. following qualifications: '1. serve, vote county; but, whenever requisite paid taxes county, qualification '2. freeholder householder county. '3. sound mind character. '4. able write. '5. felony. '6. legal accusation theft felony.' 357. page Zimmerman Md., Atlantic 675, 676—677, title Maryland, 901, 469; 266, 1616, 2043; Morse, Survey Jury System, Part II, Ore.L.Rev. 217, 226—239. suggestion Sixteenth Census States: Population Volume 6, Page 795. word 'panel' final procedure. Procedure, 360. sixteen, All connection note supra. 2; Statutes, 1948, 2955; Conklin 144 210, 416. some obscurity refers males women. Tex.Cr.App., 813, 816, 819. briefs cause voters. Almanac, 1947—1948, 421. computations used include women, statistical breakdowns sex available. Although totals sexes minor variations percentages. Compare 591, 361, 540, 129, 401—403, 1160, 'No whoever, cause, fined $5,000.' 'Section 5. enforce, legislation, provisions article.' 385, 386, commissioner said: 'I acquainted negro thought Jury, time. recommend, myself, '* submit name my submitted felt reference education business ability Jury.' Another 'We Commissioner; creed; plenty qualified. lot lawyers, doctors, Superintendents Schools sort thing occupation precludes serving. You ask doctor lawyer months time, colored; select. Panel tried.' High Principal third 'The discriminated; 'If citizen—been permission certainly along names, somebody acceptable me.' 355. centers methods convenient. 360, 539, 131—132, 166, discussion eligibles 415, 418, 157 369, 371. lack acquaintance disagreed term 'panel,' opinion, tendered compilation point: Room (among) Commissioners effort secure 'As far know, October, Term Jury; seen body. information contact (had) quoted 1181, 391 (1940 ed.) repealed revision Judicial 25, 646, 39, 992, 998, apparently embodied Rule 52(a), Rules U.S.C.A., Note Advisory 52(a); partially reenacted May 1949, 139, 105, 2111, U.S.C., Supp. III, 1950, 2111. 198, 556 (1940), 1948 645, 21, 862, 866, incorporated 52, Notes 52. 48 649, 554a ed.), incorporation 6(b)(2), advisory 6(b)(2).

Classification Label: 1