Rufus Martin v. State of Texas

Decision Date19 February 1906
Docket NumberNo. 170,170
Citation50 L.Ed. 497,26 S.Ct. 338,200 U.S. 316
PartiesRUFUS MARTIN, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF TEXAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Watson E. Coleman, O. P. Easterwood, and O. E. Smith for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. C. K. Bell, Robert Vance Davidson, and Claude Pollard for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsels from page 317 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

By an indictment returned in the district court of Tarrant county, Texas, the plaintiff in error was charged with the crime of murder. Having been duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty, the accused (who is a negro) moved to quash the indictment, on the ground, stated in writing under oath, that all persons of the African race had been excluded from the grand jury, because of their race, although about one fourth of the inhabitants of the county, competent under the law to act as grand jurors, were of that race. The facts upon which the motion was based were set out, and the accused, in the written motion, prayed that testimony be heard in support of its grounds. The state's attorney, in writing, denied such discrimination, and offered to prove that only about one hundred and fifty persons of the African race in the county, as compared with twelve thousand whites, were competent under the law to act as grand jurors.

The accused then moved in writing, verified by his oath, to quash the panel of petit jurors, upon the ground that from the panel had been excluded all persons of the African race, because of their race, although about one fourth of the persons in the county competent under the law to serve as jurors were of that race. The facts set out in that motion were also denied in writing by the state's attorney.

Both motions were overruled by the court, the accused excepting. There was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and the accused was sentenced to suffer death. The judgment of conviction was affirmed in the court of criminal appeals, the highest court of the state in which a decision of the case could be had. One of the assignments of error in that court was the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment; but no error was there assigned in respect of the overruling of the motion to quash the panel of petit jurors.

It is not contended that the Constitution or laws of Texas authorized any discrimination, on account of race merely, in the selection of grand or petit jurors. Nor is it contended that the prescribed qualifications for jurors were not appropriate in order to secure an impartial jury for the trial of an accused. Nevertheless, if, upon the hearing of the written motion to quash the indictment, the facts stated in the motion had been established by affirmative proof, or if the trial court had refused to admit evidence to prove them, we should not hesitate to reverse the judgment. For it is the settled doctrine of this court that 'whenever, by any action of a state, whether through its legislature, through its courts, or through its executive or administrative officers, all persons of the African race are excluded solely because of their race or color, from serving as grand jurors in the criminal prosecution of a person of the African race, the equal protection of the laws is denied to him, contrary to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.' Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442, 447, 44 L. ed. 839, 841, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 25 L. ed. 664; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397, 26 L. ed. 567, 574; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 40 L. ed. 1075, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 904; Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226, 231, 48 L. ed. 417, 419, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 257. So if, upon the hearing of the written motion to quash the panel of petit jurors, the facts stated in that motion had been proved, or if the opportunity to establish them by evidence had been denied to the accused, the judgment would be reversed.

But the record before us makes no such case. Although the accused in each of his written motions prayed the court to hear evidence thereon, it does not appear that he introduced any evidence whatever to prove discrimination against his race...

To continue reading

Request your trial
158 cases
  • Peters v. Kiff 8212 5078
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1972
    ... ... Pp ... 2. A State cannot, consistent with due process, subject a ... defendant to ... jury that indicted him. Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 62 S.Ct ... 1159, 86 L.Ed. 1559. P. 507 ... Edward ... Alabama, 294 U.S ... 587, 55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074 (1935); Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S ... 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906); Neal v ... ...
  • Tollett v. Henderson 8212 95
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1973
    ...394, 55 S.Ct. 784, 79 L.Ed. 1500 (1935); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 55 S.Ct. 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074 (1935); Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906); Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U.S. 226, 24 S.Ct. 257, 48 L.Ed. 417 (1904); Tarrance v. Florida, 188 U.S. 519, 23 S.Ct. 402......
  • Labat v. Bennett
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 30, 1966
    ...of Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110, 1 S.Ct. 625, 27 L.Ed. 354. It must be proven, Tarrance v. State of Florida, supra; Martin v. State of Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497, the quantum of proof necessary being a matter of federal The defendant in Swain was charged and convicted of the ......
  • Gray v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1987
    ...however, to be tried by jury members selected pursuant to neutral and non-discriminatory guidelines. See Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 321, 26 S.Ct. 338, 339, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 10 Otto 339, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1880). As Gray concedes, the Supreme Court recentl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...746 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816), 120, 143, 160, 244, 357, 365, 430, 554, 561-62, 587, 592 Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906), 1151 Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005), 1281 Martinez-Fuerte, United States v., 428 U.S. 543, 9......
  • The Equal Protection Clause
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Part IV: The Final Cause Of Constitutional Law Sub-Part Three: Civil War Amendments And Due Process Generally
    • January 1, 2007
    ...a New America, 79 N. Car. L. Rev. 1207-1567 (2001). [295] Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 305 (1880). [296] See Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 321 (1906); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 345 [297] 476 U.S. 79, 87-88 (1986), citing, inter alia, Strauder, 100 U.S. at 308. [298] Id. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT