The Commonwealth v. Wright

Decision Date08 September 1880
Citation79 Ky. 22
PartiesThe Commonwealth v. Wright.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

P. W. HARDIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THOS. A. ROBERTSON, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY, FOR APPELLANT.

RUSSELL & AVERITT AND S. A. RUSSELL FOR APPELLEE.

CHIEF JUSTICE COFER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

In Johnson v. Commonwealth we held, in pursuance of authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that a state law which excluded negroes from service on grand and traverse juries would, if enforced, deprive colored persons of the equal protection of the law, and that such statute was therefore unconstitutional. We are now called upon to decide whether that statute deprives white persons of the equal protection of the law. In other words, whether a white person indicted by a grand jury composed wholly of persons of the white race, can complain because negroes were excluded from the grand jury by which he was indicted.

Only those who are prejudiced by an unconstitutional law can complain of it. (Cooley's Const. Lim., 164.)

In Marshall v. Donovan (10 Bush, 681), Marshall, a white person, undertook to raise the question whether the exclusion of negroes from participation in the benefits of the common school system of the state was not a violation of the state constitution. But the court refused to consider the question because Marshall, being one of the favored race or class, could not raise it.

The act of the general assembly which provided that only white persons should serve upon juries has been held to be unconstitutional, because, in the opinion of the supreme court, the exclusion of negroes from juries on account of their race or color denied them the equal protection of the law in contravention of the fourteenth article of amendments to the constitution of the United States. That conclusion was based on the ground that a race whose members are excluded from serving on juries is discriminated against as a race, and is not as well protected by the law as the race not so excluded.

Surely, if this be true, it cannot be true that one belonging to the race not excluded, but from which the whole jury was required to be selected, can have been prejudiced by the fact that another race was excluded.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proper proceedings.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State ex rel. Breene v. Howard
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1918
    ...trial for an alleged crime, cannot question the constitutionality of an act because it excludes negroes from the jury. Commonwealth v. Wright, 79 Ky. 22, 42 Am. Rep. 203. And also that a man cannot raise the objection that under the law women are excluded from service as jurors. McKinney v.......
  • Commonwealth v. Goldburg
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1915
    ... ... cannot shield himself behind the defense that other parts of ... the statute violate either the state or federal Constitution, ... or both. Stevens v. Stevens, 4 T. B. Mon, 524; ... Marshall v. Donovan, 10 Bush, 681; Com. v ... Wright, 79 Ky. 22, 42 Am.Rep. 203; Sullivan v ... Berry, 83 Ky. 198, 4 Am.St.Rep. 147; Norman v ... Boaz, 85 Ky. 557, 4 S.W. 316, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 127; ... Burnside v. Lincoln County Court, 86 Ky. 423, 6 S.W ... 276, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 635; State v. McNulty, 7 N. D ... 169, 73 N.W ... [180 ... ...
  • State ex rel Breene v. Howard
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1918
    ... ... the body politic and the safety of the community itself ... Butler v. Commonwealth, 10 How. 402, 13 L.Ed. 472; ... Taylor v. Beckman, 178 U.S. 548, 20 S.Ct. 890, 1009, ... 44 L.Ed. 1187 ...          It was ... crime, cannot question the constitutionality of an act ... because it excludes negroes from the jury. Commonwealth ... v. Wright, 79 Ky. 22, 42 Am. Rep. 203. And also that a ... man cannot raise the objection that under the law women are ... excluded from service as jurors ... ...
  • Cram v. Chi., B. & Q. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1909
    ...395, 39 N. E. 554;Board of Commissioners v. Reeves, 148 Ind. 467, 46 N. E. 995; 6 A. & E. Encyc. of Law (2d Ed.) 1090; Commonwealth v. Wright, 79 Ky. 22, 42 Am. Rep. 203;Sullivan v. Berry, 83 Ky. 198, 4 Am. St. Rep. 147;Jones v. Black, 48 Ala. 540;Moore v. City of New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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