Court Opinion

ID: 9584750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:22.704626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:56.083920
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting. I agree with the majority that the only "new contention” raised in this third application by the appellant for a writ of habeas corpus is that the appellant’s present confinement is constitutionally impermissible because it is based on an indictment by a grand jury and a verdict of a petit jury from which Negroes were excluded by reason of their race. All other contentions raised in the present application were satisfactorily and legally determined adversely to the appellant in two previous habeas corpus actions, one in the State court and one in the United States District Court.
This third application for a writ of habeas corpus, now under review, raised this "new contention” with respect to the unconstitutional composition of the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him. The present application under review also prayed that the tax digest, the jury clerk, and the three jury commissioners of *697Thomas County, Georgia, be subpoenaed for the hearing because these "stated documents and witnesses will support the facts set forth in this petition.”
At the habeas corpus hearing the State moved for summary judgment on the ground that all contentions made in the present application had previously been decided adversely to the appellant in the two previous habeas corpus proceedings with the exception of the one "new contention” made concerning composition of the juries. And on this latter issue the State contended that it could have been made and should have been made in one or both of the appellant’s previous habeas corpus proceedings. In this connection the State relied on Code Ann. § 50-127 (10).
As I understand this Code section a subsequent application need not be entertained unless the application alleges and is predicated upon a ground not adjudicated in an earlier habeas corpus action or unless the habeas corpus court is satisfied that the applicant has not on the earlier application "deliberately withheld the newly asserted ground.” It is conceded here that the "new contention” has not been previously adjudicated; and it is difficult for me to understand how a court can decide that the applicant deliberately withheld in the previous habeas corpus proceeding a contention that he now genuinely believes to make his present incarceration constitutionally illegal.
The present application alleges that the grand jury and petit jury were unconstitutionally selected and assembled. The application sought to show this by documents and witnesses sought to be subpoenaed. The record shows that the appellant was cut off from making this showing. It seems to me that in this situation it was incumbent upon the State to show that the grand jury and the petit jury which indicted him and convicted him were not infected with this constitutional infirmity alleged.
The essence of the appellant’s claim is that the tribunals which indicted and convicted him were constituted in a manner that is prohibited by the "law of the land” as set forth in the Georgia Constitution and the United States *698Constitution. I think that he is entitled to a decision on that claim. See Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (87 SC 643, 17 LE2d 599), and Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S. 493 (92 SC 2163, 33 LE2d 83).
I would reverse the judgment and remand the case to the habeas corpus court with direction to decide the issue with respect to the composition of the grand jury and the petit jury.
I respectfully dissent.