Whitus v. State of Georgia Whitus v. State of Georgia, s. 650 and 253

Decision Date23 January 1967
Docket NumberNos. 650 and 253,s. 650 and 253
Citation87 S.Ct. 643,17 L.Ed.2d 599,385 U.S. 545
PartiesPhil WHITUS and Leon Davis, Petitioners, v. STATE OF GEORGIA. Phil WHITUS and Leon Davis, Petitioners, v. STATE OF GEORGIA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Charles Morgan, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., and P. Walter Jones, Albany, Ga., for petitioners.

Fred B. Hand, Jr., Pelham, Ga., and E. Freeman Leverett, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Once again we are confronted with the question of racial discrimination in the selection of the grand and petit juries which have respectively indicted petitioners and found them guilty of the offense of murder. The claim is that Georgia's system of jury selection resulted in the systematic exclusion of Negroes from both the grand and petit juries in that its law required jury commissioners to select the names of prospective jurors from the books of the county tax receiver which were maintained on a racially segregated basis. Ga.Code Ann. § 59—106. The grand jury question is raised in both these cases and we consolidated them for argument and do likewise on disposition.

No. 253 is an interlocutory appeal from a judgment denying petitioners' claim as to the grand jury which in- dicted them. Georgia law authorizes such an appeal, Ga.Code Ann. § 6—701, and it was first perfected to the Supreme Court of Georgia which transferred it to the Georgia Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the denial of the claim of discrimination. 112 Ga.App. 328, 145 S.E.2d 83. We granted certiorari. 384 U.S. 1000, 86 S.Ct. 1971, 16 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1966). In view of the lack of finality of the order in this case, we dismiss the writ in No. 253 as improvidently granted and proceed to dispose of both the grand and petit juries' questions in No. 650.

Following affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals of the interlocutory appeal, the trial court proceeded to try petitioners' cases on the merits. After a challenge to the array of petit jurors was denied, petitioners were put to trial and were convicted. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Whitus v. State, 222 Ga. 103, 149 S.E.2d 130; Davis v. State, 222 Ga. 114, 149 S.E.2d 130. We granted certiorari. 385 U.S. 813, 87 S.Ct. 183, 17 L.Ed.2d 54. We find that the circumstances here, unexplained by the State, are sufficient to support petitioners' claims of discrimination and reverse the judgments.

I.

The petitioners have been here twice before. They were originally convicted in 1960 and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Davis v. State, 216 Ga. 110, 114 S.E.2d 877; Whitus v. State, 216 Ga. 284, 116 S.E.2d 205, cert. denied, 365 U.S. 831, 81 S.Ct. 718, 5 L.Ed.2d 708 (1961). Thereafter a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in which, for the first time, petitioner Whitus attacked the composition of the grand and petit juries. The District Court dismissed the writ and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Whitus v. Balkcom, 5 Cir., 299 F.2d 844. On writ of certiorari, we vacated that judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for a hearing on the claim of discrimination. Whitus v. Balkcom, 370 U.S. 728, 82 S.Ct. 1575, 8 L.Ed.2d 803 (1962). On remand, the District Court again dismissed the petition on the ground that the claim had been waived since it was not raised in the Georgia courts. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Negroes had been systematically excluded from both the grand and petit juries. Whitus v. Balkcom, 5 Cir., 333 F.2d 496. Its ruling was based on a finding that 45% of the population of the county was Negro; yet, none had ever served on juries within the memory of the witnesses.

II.

After the Court of Appeals set aside the first convictions, Whitus v. Balkcom, ibid., the Superior Court of Mitchell County directed the jury commissioners for the county to revise the jury list. Georgia law requires that the six commissioners appointed by the Superior Court 'select from the books of the tax receiver upright and intelligent citizens to serve as jurors, and shall write the names of the persons so selected on tickets.' Ga.Code Ann. § 59—106. They are also directed to select from this group a sufficient number, not exceeding two-fifths of the whole number, of the most experienced, intelligent, and upright citizens to serve as grand jurors, writing their names on other tickets. The entire group, excepting those selected as grand jurors, constitutes the body of traverse jurors. The tickets on which the names of the traverse jurors are placed are deposited in jury boxes and entered on the minutes of the Superior Court. Ga.Code Ann. §§ 59—108, 59—109. The veniremen are drawn from the jury boxes each term of court and it is from them that the juries are selected.

The State admits that prior to 1965, the tax return sheets furnished by the State Revenue Department, Ga.Code Ann. § 92—6302, were white for white taxpayers and yellow for Negro taxpayers. The 1964 tax digest, and all digests prior to 1964, were made up from these segregated tax returns. Furthermore, the jury lists for each county are required by law to be made up from the tax digest. Ga.Code Ann. § 59—106. The State further admits that the 'revised' jury list from which both the grand and petit juries serving in these cases were selected, had been made up by reference to the old jury list, which the Court of Appeals had condemned, and the 1964 tax digest, which had been prepared from the white and yellow tax return sheets of that year. However, the jury commissioners did not use the 1964 tax returns themselves, nor the 1965 tax digest which had not yet been made up. The tax digest appears to have been in one volume but was segregated into two sections—one for white and the other for Negro taxpayers. The Negroes whose names were included in the tax digest were designated by a '(c)' being placed opposite their names as required by Ga.Code Ann. § 92—6307.

The three jury commissioners who appeared as witnesses testified that they were not aware of the letter (c) appearing after the names of the Negroes on the 1964 tax digest; that they never included or excluded anyone on the 'revised' jury list because of race or color; that they placed on the 'revised' jury list those persons whom they knew personally from their respective communities; that there were around 600 selected; and that the 'revised' list, which the commissioners themselves prepared, had no designation of race upon it.

III.

For over fourscore years it has been federal statutory law, 18 Stat. 336 (1875), 18 U.S.C. § 243, and the law of this Court as applied to the States through the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that a conviction cannot stand if it is based on an indictment of a grand jury or the verdict of a petit jury from which Negroes were excluded by reason of their race. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); see also Pierre v. State of Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354, 59 S.Ct. 536, 83 L.Ed. 757 (1939). There is no controversy as to the constitutional principle—the question involved is its application to the facts disclosed in this record. It is our province to 'analyze the facts in order that the appropriate enforcement of the federal right may be assured,' Norris v. State of Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 590, 55 S.Ct. 579, 580, 79 L.Ed. 1074 (1935), and while the conclusions reached by the highest court of the State 'are entitled to great respect * * * it becomes our solemn duty to make independent inquiry and determination of the disputed facts * * *.' Pierre v. State of Louisiana, supra, 306 U.S. at 358, 59 S.Ct., at 539. The burden is, of course, on the petitioners to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, Tarrance v. State of Florida, 188 U.S. 519, 23 S.Ct. 402, 47 L.Ed. 572 (1903). However, once a prima facie case is made out the burden shifts to the prosecution.

It is undisputed that the 'revised' jury list was made up from the 1964 tax digest, the old jury list and the personal acquaintance of the commissioners with persons in their respective communities. It is admitted that the old jury list had been condemned as illegal by the Court of Appeals when it reversed petitioners' first convictions. It is conceded that 27.1% of the taxpayers in the county are Negroes; that the county had a population in 1960 of 10,206 people over the age of 21 years, of whom 4,706 were male,1 with 2,004, or 42.6%, of this latter number being Negroes; that 33 prospective jurors were drawn for grand jury service for the term of court during which petitioners were indicted, three being Negroes, of whom one actually served on the grand jury of 19 persons; that a venire of 90 persons was used for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
614 cases
  • People v. Superior Court (Dean)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 1974
    ...220, 66 S.Ct. 984, 90 L.Ed. 1181; Montez v. Superior Court (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 343, 349, 88 Cal.Rptr. 736.5 Whitus v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 545, 550, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599; Swain v. Alabama, supra, 380 U.S. at p. 205, 85 S.Ct. 824; Hernandez v. Texas (1954) 347 U.S. 475, 476--478,......
  • Colvin v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 1984
    ...grand jury or the verdict of a petit jury from which Negroes were excluded by reason of their race." Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 549-50, 87 S.Ct. 643, 646, 17 L.Ed.2d 599, 603 (1967) (citation omitted); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); see also Rose v. Mitc......
  • People v. Powell
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1974
    ...appellants are attempting to fashion their argument after the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Whitus v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599. There the Supreme Court was disturbed by a jury selection system operating in Mitchell County, Georgia, which appe......
  • Montiel v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • November 25, 2014
    ...with jury selection procedures using tax rolls which required blacks to file on yellow paper and whites on white paper. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545(1967); Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24 (1967); Sims v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 404 (1967). Similarly, a 16% disparity combined with selection proce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Batson's Grand Jury DNA
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-5, July 2012
    • July 1, 2012
    ...396 U.S. 346 (1970) (challenging grand jury); Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24 (1967) (challenging grand and petit jury); Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967) (challenging grand and petit jury). 96. Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 627 (1972). 97. Id. at 627–28. 98. Id. at 630. 1528 IOW......
  • The failed case for Eighth Amendment regulation of the capital-sentencing trial.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 146 No. 3, March - March 1998
    • March 1, 1998
    ...a defendant who raises an equal-protection claim must establish "`the existence of purposeful discrimination'" (quoting Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 550 (1967))). One may disagree with this view of when disparate treatment should be actionable under the Fourteenth Amendment. See general......
  • Principles, practices, and social movements.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 154 No. 4, April 2006
    • April 1, 2006
    ...the purpose is legitimate, the reason justifiable, then no infringement results." Hamm, 230 F. Supp. at 158; see also Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 551 (1967) (finding an impermissible opportunity for discrimination in the state's selection of jurors from a racially segregated tax (35) S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT