Coleman v. State

• Decision Date: 09 February 1967
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 487
• Citation: 195 So.2d 800,280 Ala. 509
• Parties: Johnny COLEMAN v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 800

195 So.2d 800

280 Ala. 509

Johnny COLEMAN v. STATE of Alabama.

2 Div. 487.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 9, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1967.

Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Birmingham, Michael Meltsner and Jack Greenberg, New York City, for appellant.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of murder in Greene County in 1962. From the original conviction the case was appealed to this Court under the automatic appeal statute, Title 15, § 382(1), et seq., Code, 1940. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by this Court on May 9, 1963, 276 Ala. 513, 164 So.2d 704. On certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States the judgment of this Court was reversed and the cause remanded. 377 U.S. 129, 84 S.Ct. 1152, 12 L.Ed.2d 190 (May 4, 1964).

The single issue on which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed was the trial court's refusal to permit proof of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury roll in Greene County on a motion for a new trial made by the defendant. No offer to prove this assertion was made at any time until after the conviction and the point was raised for the first time on motion for new trial. In accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States the cause was remanded to the Circuit Court of Greene County for a hearing on the point raised in the motion for new trial. The Circuit Court held a hearing on the express question of whether Negroes are or have been systematically excluded from the jury roll of Greene County in violation of the mandate of the Constitution of the United States. The court aftr hearing denied the motion for new trial, specifically finding that there had been no exclusion, systematic or otherwise of Negroes from the jury roll in Greene County. This appeal followed.

In the hearing on the motion for new trial it was stipulated that the transcript of the trial in Colemen et al. v. Barton et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama) would constitute a part of the record before the Circuit Court on the motion for new trial. That transcript makes up a large part of the record before us. The issue here is precisely the same as the issue before the trial court on the motion, i.e. the systematic exclusion, vel non, of Negroes from the jury roll in Greene County. The United States District Court in that case entered a decree to the effect that the Jury Commission of Greene County is under a statutory duty to place on the jury roll all persons possessing the qualifications to serve as jurors without regard to race and that the Commission was not to pursue a course of conduct which would operate to discriminate in the selection of jurors. It is not questioned that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids any discrimination against a race in the selection of grand juries, petit jurices or the jury venire. Cassel v. State of Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 70 S.Ct. 629, 94 L.Ed. 839; Eubanks v. State of Louisiana, 356 U.S. 584, 78 S.Ct. 970, 2 L.Ed.2d 991; Arnold et al. v. North Carolina, 376 U.S. 773, 84 S.Ct. 1032, 12 L.Ed.2d 77 and many other cases.

The question is whether discrimination exists in the selection of jurors in Greene County, Alabama. To support his contention that Negroes are systematically excluded from the jury roll in Greene County the appellant offered a copy of the census figures from Greene County compiled by the Bureau of Census in 1960. The figures set forth the total population of the county at that time, of which some 11,500 were Negro and some 2,500 were white. There are approximately 2,200 Negro males over 21 and some 775 white males. The jury roll is made by the Jury Commission, the members of which are appointed by the Governor. The testimony of these commissioners and others indicates that the jury roll (and by this was meant the entire list of qualified jurors as compiled by the Commission) generally contained over 350 manes (in 1961 it contained 353, of whom 16 were known to be Negro; in 1962 it contained 374, of whom 62 were known to be Negro; in 1963, 377, of whom 28 were known to be Negro). It should be noted that there is no evidence that the records kept by the Commission indicate the race of a qualified person enrolled so that it is not certain from the record that those identified as Negro from...