COLEMAN
v.
ALABAMA
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 Supreme Court reversed Coleman's conviction after finding that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from the grand and petit juries that indicted and convicted him violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that Coleman established a prima facie case of discrimination through evidence that no Negro served on either jury and none had ever served on a grand jury in the county, and that Alabama failed to present adequate evidence to rebut this showing of systematic exclusion.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
On our previous remand, we held that petitioner was entitled to “his day in court on his allegations of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries sitting in his case.” 377 U. S. 129, 133. Petitioner was thereupon afforded an evidentiary hearing on his allegations. Although the evidence was in dispute regarding the inclusion of Negroes in the grand and petit jury venires in the county in which petitioner was indicted and tried, it appeared that no Negro served on the grand jury which indicted or the petit jury which convicted petitioner. It further appeared that up to the time of petitioner’s trial, no Negro had ever served on a grand jury panel and few, if any, Negroes had served on petit jury panels. This “testimony in itself made out a prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection which the Constitution guarantees.” Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 591. In the absence of evidence adduced by the State adequate to rebut the prima facie case, petitioner was therefore entitled to have his conviction reversed. Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773; Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584; Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 87-88; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475, 481; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406; Norris v. Alabama, supra.
On our independent examination of the record, we are unable to discover any evidence adduced by the State adequate to rebut petitioner’s prima facie case. The Alabama Supreme Court, in affirming the trial court’s denial of relief, acknowledged that the evidence indicated “a disparity” and stated only that “that disparity can be explained by a number of other factors.” 280 Ala. 509, 512, 195 So. 2d 800, 802. The only factors mentioned, however, were that Negroes had moved away from the county and that some may have been under the statutory disqualification of having suffered a felony conviction. In the circumstances of this case these factors were not in our view sufficient to rebut petitioner’s prima facie case.
The judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1970)…ay from the county (51%); and three who asked to be relieved from jury duty (6%). See Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U. S. 105, 106. Ga. Code Ann. § 59-106 (Supp. 1968). See Jones v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 24, 25 (per curiam); Coleman v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 22, 23 (per curiam); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559, 562-563; Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463, 468-469; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 405-406; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 594-596, 598. Sims v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 404, 407; Whitus v. Georgia…
-
Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cnty., 396 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1970)…and better-educated Negroes from the county in the 1960’s accounted for the disparity between the racial composition of the county in 1960 and of the jury rolls during the succeeding years of the decade. 298 F. Supp., at 188. See Coleman v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 22, 23. Other plaintiffs in the suit sought similar relief, as well as an injunction to prevent the grand jury from considering charges of grand larceny then outstanding against them. The District Court denied relief with respect to those plaintiffs,…
-
United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564 (1st Cir. 1970)…. E. g., Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 90 S.Ct. 532, 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970) ; Sims v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 404, 407, 88 S.Ct. 523, 19 L.Ed.2d 634 (1967) ; Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 25, 88 S.Ct. 4, [*569] 19 L.Ed.2d 25 (1967) ; Coleman v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 22, 23, 88 S.Ct. 2, 19 L.Ed.2d 22 (1967) ; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. at 480-482, 74 S.Ct. 667; Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. at 131, 61 S.Ct. 164; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. at 596, 598, 47 S.Ct. 590; see Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. at 471, 73 S.Ct. 397.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1954)
- Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (U.S. 1935)
- Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1942)
- Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1955)
- Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1958)
- Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U.S. 773 (U.S. 1964)
- Coleman v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1964)