420 U.S. 28 (1975), 73-5993, Test v. United States

Docket Nº:No. 73-5993
Citation:420 U.S. 28, 95 S.Ct. 749, 42 L.Ed.2d 786
Party Name:Test v. United States
Case Date:January 27, 1975
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 28

420 U.S. 28 (1975)

95 S.Ct. 749, 42 L.Ed.2d 786

Test

v.

United States

No. 73-5993

United States Supreme Court

Jan. 27, 1975

Argued December 11, 1974

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

An unqualified right of a litigant to inspect jury lists held required not only by the plain text of the provisions of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f), allowing the parties in a case "to inspect" such lists at all reasonable times during the "preparation" of a motion challenging compliance with jury selection procedures, but also by the Act's overall purpose of insuring "grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community," 28 U.S.C. § 1861. Hence, where the District Court denied petitioner's motion, prior to his trial and conviction on a federal drug charge, to inspect the jury lists in connection with his challenge to the grand and petit juries selection procedures, the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded so that he may attempt to support his challenge.

486 F.2d 922, vacated and remanded.

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for distribution of a hallucinogenic drug commonly known as LSD. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to dismiss his

Page 29

indictment, claiming that the master lists1 from which his grand jury had been, and petit jury would be, selected systematically excluded disproportionate numbers of people with Spanish surnames, students, and blacks. These exclusions, petitioner alleged, violated both his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the provisions of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. Attached to this motion was an affidavit by petitioner's counsel stating facts that had been disclosed by testimony at a jury challenge in another case, and which petitioner claimed supported his challenge. Also accompanying the motion was another motion requesting permission to inspect and copy the jury lists "pertaining to the grand and petit juries in the instant indictment." Petitioner asserted that inspection was necessary for discovering evidence to buttress his claims.

The District Court rejected the jury challenge and denied the motion to inspect the lists. Petitioner renewed his claims before the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but that court affirmed his conviction without discussing these issues. We...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP