MAURICE SANFORD AND JIM JOHNSON, APPELLEES,
v.
TERRELL DON HUTTO, COMMISSIONER, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, finding a prima facie case of jury discrimination that the state failed to rebut.
Petitioners, two black men, were convicted of rape in 1969. They filed a habeas corpus action claiming purposeful exclusion of black persons from the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of Correction from a final judgment granting habeas corpus relief to Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson. Sanford and Johnson cross appeal from an order denying their motion to release pending retrial.
In October, 1969, Sanford and Johnson, two black men, were convicted by jury of first degree" rape in St. Francis County, Arkansas. After exhausting state remedies, petitioners filed this habeas corpus action claiming purposeful and systematic exclusion of black persons from the jury venire from which the jury panel that convicted them was drawn. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1 held that petitioners established a prima facie case of jury discrimination which the Commissioner failed to rebut. Accordingly, the petitioners’ convictions were vacated and the State of Arkansas was granted leave to retry them. Petitioners’ motion for release on their own recognizance pending appeal was denied.
We agree with Judge Henley and affirm on the basis of his well-reasoned opinion.2
The State of Arkansas is given thirty days from the mandate of this court within which to retry the petitioners. If for any reason the State fails to commence the retrial within the allotted period or any extension granted by the trial court, the trial court shall immediately order the petitioners released.
The mandate of this court shall issue forthwith.
. The Honorable J. Smith Henley, District Judge.
. The opinion of the district court is reported at 394 F.Supp. 1278 (E.D.Ark.1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murrah v. State OF Ark., 532 F.2d 105 (8th Cir. 1976)
-
Ross v. Wyrick, 553 F.2d 51 (8th Cir. 1977)