Pace v. State
Citation | 714 So.2d 320 |
Decision Date | 27 September 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-93-740 |
Parties | Levi PACE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
The "on return to remand" opinion issued on July 3, 1996, is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted therefor.
The appellant, Levi Pace, was convicted of murder made capital because the murder was committed during the course of a robbery. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant was sentenced to death by electrocution. We remanded this case so that the trial court could hold a hearing on whether blacks were discriminated against in the selection of grand jury forepersons in Morgan County and whether the prosecution discriminated against blacks when making its peremptory strikes to select the jury. Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 316 (Ala.Cr.App.1995).
The trial court has complied with our directions and has held a hearing on the above issues.
The appellant contended that blacks were discriminated against in the selection of grand jury forepersons in Morgan County and that his indictment, therefore, should have been dismissed.
To prove a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of grand jury forepersons a petitioner must show: 1) that the group alleged to be discriminated against is a distinct group; 2) that the degree of underrepresentation is significant over a period of time; and 3) that the selection procedure is susceptible to abuse or is not race-neutral. Lee v. State, 631 So.2d 1059, 1060 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), and Locke v. State, 631 So.2d 1062 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). See also Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1071 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 898, 112 S.Ct. 274, 116 L.Ed.2d 226 (1991).
At the hearing on remand, the testimony established that blacks comprised a distinct group in Morgan County. Testimony also established that since 1927, the date a record of grand jury proceedings was first kept, no black had ever served as foreperson for a Morgan County grand jury. Testimony also established that the grand jury forepersons were chosen by the judge who presided over grand jury selection on the advice of the district attorney's office. Several judges testified that it was their practice to ask the district attorney who to appoint as grand jury foreperson or, in a few instances, to have the district attorney approve of the name they selected. There is absolutely no question here that a prima facie case of discrimination was proven. The trial court in its order denying the motion agreed. However, once a prima facie case of discrimination has been proven, the burden shifts to the state to rebut the prima facie case. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972):
405 U.S. at 631-32, 92 S.Ct. at 1226, 31 L.Ed.2d at 541. See Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 99 S.Ct. 2993, 61 L.Ed.2d 739 (1979) and Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1976). See also Guice v. Fortenberry, 661 F.2d 496 (5th Cir.1981).
As the United States Supreme Court stated in Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954):
347 U.S. at 481-82, 74 S.Ct. at 672, 98 L.Ed. at 872.
The United States Supreme Court, in Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 359, 90 S.Ct. 532, 539-40, 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970), stated:
396 U.S. at 360-61, 90 S.Ct. at 540, 24 L.Ed.2d at 569. See also Stephens v. Cox, 449 F.2d 657 (4th Cir.1971).
The trial court, in finding that the state had rebutted the prima facie case, relied on United States v. Perez-Hernandez, 672 F.2d 1380 (11th Cir.1982), where the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the state rebutted the prima facie case, stated:
672 F.2d at 1387-88. (Emphasis added.) What the trial court failed to consider when relying on Perez-Hernandez was the fact that the district attorney in Morgan County recommended to the trial court the person he wanted the trial court to select as grand jury foreperson. The situation that existed in this case is not analogous to the situation in Perez-Hernandez, where the judge, without outside advice, selected the grand jury foreperson.
In this case, the judge did not "alone" select the grand jury foreperson. The witnesses called in this case testified that they could not remember one instance when the trial court did not follow the recommendation of the district attorney. The individuals called to testify, a great many of whom were former district attorneys, stated that they picked the grand jury foreperson on the basis of whether they knew the person and whether that person had a good reputation in the community. One witness, a former district attorney and a former judge in Morgan County, admitted that the criteria he used when recommending a grand jury foreperson to the court was subjective. Of course selection by the district attorney is inherently suspect because unlike the judge, the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burgess v. State
...a significant period of time; and 3) that the selection process either is not race-neutral or is susceptible to abuse. Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 320 (Ala.Cr. App.1996), Lee v. State, 631 So.2d 1059, 1060 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), Locke v. State, 631 So.2d 1062, 1063-64 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (all citing......
-
Wilson v. State
...___ (Ala. Cr. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds, [Ms. 1971816, August 6, 1999] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 1999). See also Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 320 (Ala. Cr. App. 1996), rev'd in part, 714 So.2d 332 (Ala. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1372, 140 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998); Bass v. St......
-
Drinkard v. State
...of his assertion, he relies primarily on the case of Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 316 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995), opinion after remand, 714 So.2d 320 (Ala.Cr.App.1996). In Pace, a capital murder case, the defendant filed an untimely motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground that the selection of g......
-
Griffin v. State
...established that [he] was in New York at the time Mr. Davis was killed." (Griffin's brief to this Court at p. 76.) In Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 320, 331 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), rev'd in part on other grounds, 714 So.2d 332 (Ala.1997), we addressed a similar claim, "However, in Dubose v. State, 66......