Legal Document

468 U.S. 339 104 S.Ct. 3093 82 L.Ed.2d 260 Wilbur HOBBY, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 82-2140. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 25, 1984. Decided July 2, Syllabus Petitioner, a white male, was indicted on federal fraud charges. Prior to trial, he moved for dismissal indictment ground that there discrimination in grand jury selection process violation Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. At hearing motion dismiss, petitioner introduced testimony statistical social science consultant showing 7-year period prior petitioner's none 15 juries empaneled had Negro or female foreman and deputy foremen appointed only 3 been Negroes 6 women. The District denied convicted after trial. Appeals affirmed. Held: Assuming entered into foremen, such does not warrant reversal conviction against him. Pp. 342-350. (a) Discrimination foremen—as distinguished from itself—does any sense threaten interests defendant protected by Clause. Unlike itself, office is creature Constitution, but, instead, originally instituted statute convenience court. responsibilities are essentially clerical nature administering oaths, maintaining records, signing indictments. Given its ministerial nature, role so significant administration justice has appreciable effect defendant's due right fundamental fairness. And long as composition whole serves interest assuring includes persons with range experiences perspectives, impinge interest. 342-346. (b) An assumption requires setting aside warranted here where male challenging grounds jury. Rose v. Mitchell, 433 545, 99 2993, 61 739, distinguished. 346-349. (c) This declines invitation embark, pursuant supervisory power over courts, upon course vacating convictions because foremen. 349-350. 702 F.2d 466 (CA4 1983), Daniel R. Pollitt, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Joshua I. Schwartz, respondents. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits whether resulting underrepresentation women position, 2 * one count conspiring defraud funds appropriated under Comprehensive Employment Training Act 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (CETA), 18 §§ 371 665, three counts fraudulently obtaining misapplying CETA grant funds, 665. trial Eastern North Carolina, him "due improper jurors." App. 32. In particular, alleged plan "exclude[d] citizens service . account race, color, economic status occupation, Sixth Amendments Constitution." Id., at 33. an evidentiary regarding characteristics selected Carolina between 1974 1981. expert witness reported during this foreman. Of deputies interval, testified, From these data concluded were underrepresented serving Carolina. Rejecting claim process, dismiss indictment, 4 Fourth Circuit (1983). Reasoning performs strictly function, viewed foreman's impact system rights criminal defendants minimal incidental most. response contention appointment may enlarge individual's capacity influence other jurors, likelihood too vague speculative dismissals indictments reversals convictions. 5 recognized 443 551-552, n. 4, 2997-2998, 739 (1979), assumed without deciding state would require subsequent be set aside. noted, however, function differs substantially states. court fully product discriminatory selection. issue,1 464 1017, 547, 78 722 (1983), we affirm. II A. 7 It well settled, course, purposeful forbidden Amendment Constitution. question presented here, narrow appropriate remedy violation. consider. No factual evidence issue discrimination; relied inferences drawn failure select woman seven years studied. As did Appeals, proceed occurred order treat constitutional dismiss. 8 Invoking Amendment, argues his Peters Kiff, 407 493, 92 2163, 33 83 (1972), announcing judgment discussed concerns implicated racial petit whole. Emphasizing fairly tried competent impartial tribunal, see re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, L.Ed. 942 (1955), reasoned unconstitutionally procedures create appearance institutional bias, they "cast doubt integrity judicial process." U.S., 502, S.Ct., 2168. Moreover, perceived important societal value diversity representation juries: 9 "When large identifiable segment community excluded service, remove room qualities human varieties experience, which unknown perhaps unknowable. necessary assume group will consistently vote class conclude, do, exclusion deprives perspective events have unsuspected importance case presented." 503-504, 2168-2169 (footnote omitted).2 10 Constitution; post See 28 420 (1934 ed.); Rev.Stat. 809 (1878). Today, authority found Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 6(c), provides: 11 "The shall appoint jurors another administer oaths affirmations sign all He juror designated keep record number concurring finding every file clerk court, but made public except During absence foreman, act foreman." 12 6(c) somewhat ancient roots, cast it what now obsolete terms: Centuries usage, relating back day when serve juries, embedded terms law our daily vocabulary. However, us amend outside processes fixed Congress rulemaking; task committees Judicial Conference States. 13 illustrates, nature: secrecy imperative proceedings demands someone "mind store," just secretary records sorts proceedings. But trappings carry them no special powers duties meaningfully affect charges crime, beyond those possessed member body. apart manner determines influences individual prosecuted. Even duty formality, signature mere technical irregularity necessarily fatal indictment. Frisbie States, 157 160, 163-165, 586, 587-588, 39 657 (1895). 14 charged crime "minimal best." F.2d, 471. person members properly constituted can little, if indeed any, Simply stated, impugns fairness itself undermine Nor impair perspectives. concern "large [be] service," 503, 2168, arise pertains That questioned. possibly represent "qualities experience," ibid., present given community. So representational values expressed Peters, interests. 16 vital significantly invades distinctive Absent infringement violates basis reverse B 17 Petitioner Court's decision supports position warrants Rose, two brought equal protection challenge Tennessee. rejected view claims should considered harmless error raised who error-free merits, adhered valid conviction. 551-559, 2997-3002. then "without regard aside, proved tainted entire venire." (emphasis added). concluded, entitled their failed make out prima facie Equal Protection 564-574, 3004-3009. Petitioner's reliance misplaced. involved allegedly suffered injuries stigmatization prejudice associated discrimination. held provide mechanism vindiction context challenges juries. See, e.g., Castaneda Partida, 430 482, 97 1272, 51 498 (1977); Hernandez Texas, 347 475, 74 667, 98 866 (1954); Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 25 664 (1880). cannot said defendants. Thus, injury distinguish circumstances Rose. 19 must read light method used Tennessee Under system, random commissioners list qualified potential jurors. separately judge general eligible population large. served " 'the thirteenth each organized term office, having matters coming before thereof.' supra, 548, 2996, (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. 40-1506 (Supp.1978)). therefore determined presiding officer, also 13th voting result impermissible fashion. contrast, chosen empaneled, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c); unlike surrogate judge. constituted, risk distort overall array otherwise taint operation process. 20 Finally, system. following duties: 21 "He she assisting district attorney investigating issuance subpoenas witnesses jury, witnesses, endorse bill returned presence endorsement makes 'fatally defective.' Bird State, 103 Tenn. 343, 344, 52 S.W. 1076 (1899)." 2. 22 investigative administrative conferred Tennessee, virtual veto stand sharp contrast counterpart, tasks whose formality. (1895); 344-345. 23 peculiar operated, conviction, "just 4. very different III 24 oral argument, eschewed primary particular provision instead invoked courts relief seeks. Tr. Oral Arg. 4-5, 7, 13-14. Only dismissing him, urges, deter future minorities true "supervision implies establishing civilized standards procedure evidence." McNabb 318 332, 340, 63 608, 612, 87 819 (1943). Hasting, 461 499, 1974, 76 96 decline embark Less Draconian measures suffice rectify problem. do countenance satisfied judges citizen consideration religion, sex, national origin, status. Cf. 1862. IV 26 hold that, assuming of, against, bringing Accordingly, 27 Affirmed. MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN STEVENS join, dissenting. majority assumes purposefully discriminated selecting recognizes unconstitutional. concludes, unwarranted "the 'minimal best,' ante, 345 (citation omitted), thereby rendering requests incommensurate received. I dissent errs assessment (I) dimensions caused (II) defendant, (III) relative costs likely imposed compared exacted resolution case. 30 established principle jurisprudence race sex formation measured actual done confidence For example, reversed habeas corpus challenged State argued absent Three Justices, judgment, argument took "too kinds harm flow discrimination" 498, 2166. They declared required "[i]llegal unconstitutional bias cases, increase well." 502-503, 2168-2169. 31 theme reaffirmed (1979). prisoners sought manner. strongly suggested, proven support again rebuffed unwarranted. Instead, reiterated longstanding belief regardless inflicted "larger concerns," id., 555, 2999, implicated: 32 "Discrimination odious respects, especially pernicious justice. Selection destroys casts [S]uch 'not Constitution laws enacted war basic concepts democratic society representative government.' 'The limited defendant—there institution, large, ideal reflected courts.' 555-556, 2999-3000 omitted).1 There good reason why judiciary diminished whenever invidious seeps processes. diminution largely stems recognition institutions purposes independent accurate factfinding. These exemplify, operate, notions central faith norms.2 reflect demand ourselves Nation committed equality enforcement law. "is justice," effects constitute "to institution," eradicated root branch most effective means available. 34 assumably functions performed respect poses substantial threat actually prejudiced impugned mind public. observes alleges improperly posits observant realize practice simply unimportant justify loss inasmuch unobjectionable venire, more than juror, merely ministerial. 35 vice focusing exclusively disregards After all, perpetrator A supposed embodiment evenhanded Society reveals attend official illicit irrelevant entrusting wide discretionary authority. idea occupying powerful sensitive discriminate extraordinarily disquieting unlikely engages racist sexist practices confine prejudicial attitudes actions area selections. More portion widespread region decisionmaking. 36 Furthermore, allocating within venire helped perpetuate well-known vicious stereotypes struggling erase. To denigrate significance judge's characterizing incidental" exposes justified hypocrisy. 37 With himself harmed violation, concludes "can fairness." Ante, 345. conclusion first attempts view, "[d]iscrimination Clause." 344. buttress distinction, "[u]nlike Constitution" "originally court." Ibid. observation useful, suppose, revelation antiquarian fact; utterly unconvincing explanation presume, matter law, fair Neither nor appeals creatures both statute.3 assume, legislative opposed origins attenuate crucial scheme. 38 Another factor focuses way distinguishing hand impaired "assuring perspectives." By case, rather internal organization: selected. contends flowing implicate variety backgrounds perspectives 346. mistakenly applies stands. stands proposition screened excluded. What means, neither sex. While least possibility nullified presumably establish exerted looks principally Rules Procedure. trouble approach concentrating formal delineated ignores developed "by custom, practice, necessity." Cross, 708 631, 637-638 (CA11 1983).4 realistic understanding supplemented additional sources evidence. One source Handbook Grand Jurors (1980) (Handbook), prepared Committee Operation Jury System. "was recommended use Courts orient prepare newly impaneled 3. Its mission explain "clearly simply" obligations duties. informs jury," 9; emergency prevents attendance meeting, affected "must promptly advise foreperson, excuse" juror's absence, 25; administers oath 11; initiates questioning 26; interpreter required, deliberations, tallies votes, reports jury's conclusions 13. 40 description provided detailed offered attuned expected day-to-day responsibility portrays far nature; rather, enables, requires, equals room. 41 Handbook's corroborated Judges testified look Breland, 522 F.Supp. 468, 471-474 (ND Ga.); Manbeck, 514 141, 150 (SC 1981); Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 510 668, 683-684 Ga.1981); Holman, 1175 Fla.1981); Jenison, 485 655, 665-666 (SD Fla.1979). Two patterns emerge testimony. First, typically allocate considerable time attention foremen.5 If insignificant contends, little concerned requisite Second, "good management skills, strong occupational ability preside, educational background, personal leadership qualities." 636 (summarizing adduced supra).6 Were seek "personal qualities."7 42 is, moreover, fails address: difficulty detecting "that proof harm, lack virtually impossible adduce. ." 504, 2169. arose allow excluding Negroes, stated consequences uncertainty fall prosecution. "[i]n great latent jury-selection avoiding resolved favor giving opportunity many defendants, few." Likewise, judge, (and society's) applying stringent lax. 43 consequence misperception misunderstanding constitutes remedy. [grand jury] foremen" "[l]ess problem." 349. Yet never articulates "less Draconian" mind. states "fully status." Such assurance, completely nonsensical since, Judge exclude 44 Determining appropriateness reversing elementary, though oft-ignored, vindicated remedy.8 '[i]f anything pious pronouncements, some measurable attached violation." Calandra, 414 338, 94 613, 561 (1974) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting, joined J.) Oaks, Studying Exclusionary Search Seizure, U.Chi.L.Rev. 756 (1970)). intolerable prohibition could violated practical consequence. traditional government action requests: nullification. Nullification even remotely effective. 45 declares fiat "Draconian" measure. Missing opinion, indication factors essential determining proper scope inchoate majority's reasoning regrettable since engaged comprehensive explication balancing analysis 553-559, 2998-3002. 46 rejection outweigh less conviction—i.e., attendant retrying defendant. determined, "outweighed policy combating justice." 558, 3001. making determination, considerations. looked types remedies resort rectifying deterring analogous violations. observed ways drastic resorted contexts violated. 557-558, 2993. illegal search coerced confession, often results suppression highly probative guilt. Dismissing render practically immune reindictment reprosecution. reprosecution, Government remains free initially obtain instance. efficacy alternative remedies. exists prohibiting actionable civil suits. inadequacies9 disabled alone burden discouraging similar calculus yield 47 legitimate effectively discriminating ordering vindicate own judiciary.10 conduct resides four corners uniquely amenable influence. principles policies definite, deeply rooted jurisprudence.11 find misguided mysterious. serious countenance" sex-based 349, surely subverts declaration refusing long-established declining offer glimpse respectfully dissent. 48 STEVENS, 49 rule forbids primarily overriding process—both symbolic embodies. understand settled leads State's deprivation person's liberty process" prejudice. significance. Although my doubts concerning wisdom certain situations, 593-594, 3019-3020 (STEVENS, dissenting part), enforce proceedings, insist adherence same standard join MARSHALL's opinion. Compare Aimone, 715 822 (CA3 1983) (discrimination raise concerns); (case below) (same); Coletta, 682 820 (CA9 1982) (alleged insufficient imply violation), cert. denied, 459 1202, 1187, 631 (position constitutionally significant); Perez-Hernandez, 672 1380 conviction; discrimination). Cronn, 717 164 (CA5 (white lacks standing press foreman; addressed). bring racial-discrimination Justices Douglas Stewart, assert denial WHITE, POWELL, implement statutory 243, provides "shall disqualified previous condition servitude. 505-507, 2169-2171. Ballard 329 187, 67 261, 91 181 (1946): "[E]xclusion panels times reversible depend evil lies admitted disregard prescribed selection." 195, 265. "In laws, existence imperilled observe scrupulously. Our potent, omnipresent teacher. ill, teaches people example." Olmstead 277 438, 485, 564, 575, 72 944 (1928) (Brandeis, dissenting). Const., Art. III, ("The Power vested supreme Court, inferior ordain establish"). information still maintain job sufficiently consequential perform designation importantly differentiates venire. 637 ("A foreperson might appear endow enhanced persuasive her peers"). indicated "considered juror] questionnaire, several tentative choices reaching final decision." F.Supp., 473. "reviewed questionnaire prospective courtroom identified answered roll call. possess sufficient intellectual independence prevent being "easily led Attorney." 1180. Similarly, chose "work history" "leadership ability." maintains indicia purported insignificance deemed invalidate nothing about functional position. refusal reflects objectives, applicable stymied meaningless formalities. Ventresca, 380 102, 108, 85 741, 745, 684 (1965) (rejecting adequacy affidavit documents "tested interpreted commonsense fashion"). Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 163, 60 (1803) emphatically termed men. certainly cease deserve high appellation, furnish legal right"). noted 243 race. recognized, prosecutions rare "are control courts." further "[c]ivil actions, expensive lengthy, used." (1946), dismissed systematically though, time, expressly prohibited disqualification Legislation "[n]o (1880); Smith 311 128, 164, 84 (1940). 243;

Classification Label: 1