Pass v. Caldwell, 28188
| Decision Date | 04 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 28188,28188 |
| Parties | Edward Deen PASS v. E. B. CALDWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hill, Jones & Farrington, Bobby L. Hill, Savannah, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, David L. G. King, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Edward Deen Pass appeals a judgment in the Tattnall Superior Court denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus, and remanding him to the custody of the respondent. Held:
1. We affirm. Petitioner claims the trial judge erred in denying the writ on the grounds that appellant did not prove systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury rolls. We do not agree. It was held in United States v. Hyde, 5 Cir., 448 F.2d 815, 826 that the defendant always has the burden of showing jury discrimination. Evidence of 'spectacular' underrepresentation meets the burden, making a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden of going forward then shifts to the government to explain the figures in a non-discriminatory way. The requirements for making out a prima facie case of jury discrimination are two fold. First, appellant must prove that an opportunity for discrimination on account of race existed on the grounds that the source from which the potential jurors was drawn was racially biased, and second, that the use of such an 'infected source' produced a significant disparity between the percentages of blacks found present in the source and those actually appearing on appellant's grand and petit jury panels. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599; Wright v. Smith, 474 F.2d 349, 351 (5th Cir. 1973).
It appears from the evidence that 5.13% of the grand jury venire from which appellants grand jury was drawn consisted of blacks. It also appears that the percentage of blacks in DeKalb County is 11%. This is not the percentage of those eligible to be selected, but the total percentage in the county. The number of presumptively eligible jurors of the black race in DeKalb County is not known from the record in this proceeding. Under Wright v. Smith, supra, the showing required is a large disparity between those eligible and those chosen, and proof that there was purposeful discrimination in the selection process. We hold after careful study of the record before us that petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of jury discrimination, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. State
...S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed. 187; White v. State, 230 Ga. 327, 332, 196 S.E.2d 849. Having failed to meet the two requirements of Pass v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 192, 200 S.E.2d 720, Payne has failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination on his grand and petit Payne's second attack on th......
-
Orkin v. State
...on the jury list and in the population as a whole. Whitus, supra; Foster v. Sparks, 506 F.2d 805(4) (5th Cir. 1975); Pass v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 192, 200 S.E.2d 720 (1973). Implicit in these requirements is that the defendant has the burden of showing that the group he seeks to prove has been......
-
Davis v. State
...of the alleged underrepresentation of blacks and women in the 1975 jury pool. The test we must apply was set out in Pass v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 192, 200 S.E.2d 720 (1973), based on Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1966), and applied in Barrow v. State, 239 Ga. 16......
-
Bowen v. State
...(1976); Gibson v. State, 236 Ga. 874, 226 S.E.2d 63 (1976); State v. Gould, 232 Ga. 844, 209 S.E.2d 312 (1974); and Pass v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 192, 200 S.E.2d 720 (1973). Age is not, however, a recognized class for the purpose of jury representation. Barrow v. State, supra; State v. Gould, s......