HOLLINS
v.
OKLAHOMA
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.
An African American defendant convicted of rape in Oklahoma challenged his conviction on the ground that African Americans had been systematically excluded from jury service in the county solely because of their race, violating his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from jury service violated constitutional protections established in prior cases and requiring a new trial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, upon an information charging rape. At the trial, petitioner challenged the jury panel upon the ground that negroes for a long period had been excluded from jury service in that county solely on account of their race or color, and that this discrimination had deprived petitioner of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Evidence was taken by the trial court upon this issue, the challenge was overruled, and petitioner excepted. Upon appeal, the federal question was presented to the Criminal Court of Appeals and was decided against petitioner. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, April 1, 1935. .
From its examination of the evidence, the Court is of the opinion that the case calls for the application of the principles declared in Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397, and Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Will Lewis, 152 Fla. 178 (Fla. 1943)…d the equal protection of the law and is deprived of due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Hale v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 303 U. S. 613, 58 Sup. Ct. 753, 82 L. Ed. 1050; Hollins v. State of Oklahoma, 295 U. S. 394, 55 Sup. Ct. 784, 79 L. Ed. 1500; Norris v. State of Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 55 Sup. Ct. 579, 79 L. Ed. 1074; Martin v. State of Texas, 200 U. S. 316, 26 Sup. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497. The rule is binding on State as well as Federal courts. Ex parte V…1 / 2
-
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986)…or was entitled to six peremptory challenges, and defense counsel to nine. Rule 9.40. See, e. g., Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 (1881); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587 (1935); Hollins v. Oklahoma, 295 U. S. 394 (1935) (per curiam); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354 (1939); Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463 (1947); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559 (1953); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954); Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (1967); Jones v. Georgia,…
-
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1973)…ssissippi, 332 U. S. 463 (1947); Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398 (1945); Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400 (1942); Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128 (1940); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354 (1939); Hale v. Kentucky, 303 U. S. 613 (1938); Hollins v. Oklahoma, 295 U. S. 394 (1935); Norris v. Alabama, 294 u. S. 587 (1935); Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316 (1906); Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226 (1904); Torrance v. Florida, 188 U. S. 519 (1903); Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442 (1900); Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (U.S. 1935)
- Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1880)