Ferguson v. Dutton, 71-1827 Summary Calendar.
Decision Date | 21 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1827 Summary Calendar.,71-1827 Summary Calendar. |
Citation | 477 F.2d 121 |
Parties | Billy Homer FERGUSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. L. DUTTON, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Ga., Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Walter H. Wingfield, Atlanta, Ga., C. Ronald Ellington, Athens, Ga. (Court Appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen. of Ga., Dorothy T. Beasley, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Billy Homer Ferguson, a white man, presently under sentence of life imprisonment as a result of his conviction for first degree murder, here appeals from the District Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Although several other substantial constitutional questions are raised, the gravamen of Appellant's complaint concerns the systematic exclusion of Blacks from the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him.
Consistent with the then controlling rule in this Circuit1 the District Court held that Ferguson, a white man, did not have standing to complain of the systematic exclusion of Blacks from his Douglas County, Georgia, grand and petit juries. But the tenor of the law was greatly altered by the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Peters v. Kiff, 1972, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 33 L.Ed.2d 83, holding as follows:
"If white petitioner\'s allegations are correct, and Negroes were systematically excluded from his grand and petit juries, then he was indicted and convicted by tribunals that fail to satisfy the elementary requirements of due process, and neither the indictment nor the conviction can stand."
This Court has recently determined that the state courts should be given a first opportunity to pass on the validity of a habeas petitioner's Peters v. Kiff challenge to the jury array. In Mosley v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1973, 470 F.2d 1320 we held:
2
Accordingly, we remand to the District Court to allow the question to be presented to the courts of Georgia.
Remanded.
* Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
1 See Mosley v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 346; Woodruff v. Breazeale, M.D. Miss., 1967, 291 F.Supp. 130, affirmed, 5 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 997. See also this Court's decision in Peters v. Kiff, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 370, reversed, 1972, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 33 L.Ed.2d 83.
2 In his excellent brief, Petitioner suggests that the exhaustion doctrine is inappropriate for this particular case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. United States
...remanded for exhaustion of state remedies. See United States ex rel. Davis v. Henderson, 474 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1973); Ferguson v. Dutton, 477 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1973). Our holding here would not require a different result in Mosley v. Smith, Davis v. Henderson, or Ferguson v. Dutton. It w......
-
Ferguson v. Caldwell
...no ruling on Ferguson's contentions regarding the admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of the search. See Ferguson v. Dutton, 477 F.2d 121 (5th Cir., 1973). 'Pursuant to this decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order dated......