Williams v. State, No. 18548
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | WYATT |
| Citation | 82 S.E.2d 217,210 Ga. 665 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. 18548 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1954 |
Page 217
v.
STATE.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1954.
There is no error in the judgment of the court below dismissing the extraordinary motion for new trial.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of murder, without a recommendation of mercy, in the Superior Court of Fulton County on March 10, 1953. A motion for new trial was filed and duly overruled. That judgment was affirmed by this court. See Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 207, 78 S.E.2d 521.
Page 218
On December 1, 1953, plaintiff in error filed his extraordinary motion for new trial. This motion was set for hearing and duly continued until January 18, 1954. When the motion came on for a hearing, it was dismissed on motion of the solicitor general. To this judgment the plaintiff in error excepted and assigns this judgment as error.
The extraordinary motion for new trial contains two grounds, both complaining that the defendant had been denied certain specified constitutional rights guaranteed him under stated provisions [210 Ga. 666] of the Constitution of the United States. Ground two has been expressly abandoned, and will not be considered. Ground one contends that, upon the trial of the defendant for murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, he was denied equal protection of the laws in violation of sec. I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Code, § 1-815. This ground is long and sets out the process of selecting persons to serve as jury commissioners and persons to serve as jurors, and the empaneling of said jurors to serve in specific cases. The substance of the contention, however, that the defendant was denied equal protection of the laws was that in the selection, drawing, summoning, organizing, empaneling, and challeging of the jury sworn to try him, he was discriminated against on account of his color.
Many methods and instances of discrimination against the defendant are related in ground one of the extraordinary motion. However, it is urged in this court that the defendant is entitled to a new trial because of the fact that the names of White traverse jurors were placed on white paper and that the names of Colored traverse jurors were placed on yellow paper. It is urged that this is discriminatory, and that this practice made it possible to keep the number of Negroes summoned for jury service within the number of peremptory challenges allowed the State and thus enabled the State to keep Negroes from serving on the jury.
It appears from the record that four Negroes were on the panel of 48 put upon the defendant. Three of these were excused for cause. The fourth was called for service by the clerk and was peremptorily challenged by the State, leaving no Negroes on the jury.
The other grounds of the motion need not be set out here, since they are not argued in this court. However, the decision here made will be decisive of all questions in the case, since all relate to the legality of the selection, drawing, summoning, organizing, and empaneling of the jury put upon the defendant.
Carter Goode, Ellis M. Creel, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., Carl B. Copeland, William E. Spence, Charlie O. Murphy, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
[210 Ga. 667] WYATT, Presiding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. Zant, No. 82-8408
...by defendants who prefer to wait until the jury's decision to decide whether to challenge its legality. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 82 S.E.2d 217, 219-20 (1954), remanded sub nom. Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161 (1955). Both of these policies we......
-
Spencer v. Kemp, No. 82-8408
...purposes of commencing jury selection, while reserving a challenge to the array to be exercised at a later time. 10 See Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 82 S.E.2d 217, 219-20 (1954), remanded for reconsideration, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161, aff'd, 211 Ga. 763, 88 S.E.2d 376 (1......
-
Tennon v. Ricketts, No. 77-2356
...v. State, 232 Ga. 470, 471(2), 207 S.E.2d 457 (1974); Simmons v. State, 226 Ga. 110, 111(1a), 172 S.E.2d 680 (1970); Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 667, 82 S.E.2d 217 (1954).' " 220 S.E.2d at 916. Faced with this outcome, Tennon sought review in the United States Supreme Court. The petitio......
-
Cauley v. State, Nos. 48422
...566. See also Williams v. State, 31 Ga.App. 173(3), 120 S.E. 131. The objection is waived unless properly challenged. Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 667, 82 S.E.2d The state contends that a full panel was put upon the defendant when it had 65 jurors in it, and that the excusing of 20 of th......
-
Spencer v. Zant, No. 82-8408
...by defendants who prefer to wait until the jury's decision to decide whether to challenge its legality. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 82 S.E.2d 217, 219-20 (1954), remanded sub nom. Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161 (1955). Both of these policies we......
-
Spencer v. Kemp, No. 82-8408
...purposes of commencing jury selection, while reserving a challenge to the array to be exercised at a later time. 10 See Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 82 S.E.2d 217, 219-20 (1954), remanded for reconsideration, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161, aff'd, 211 Ga. 763, 88 S.E.2d 376 (1......
-
Tennon v. Ricketts, No. 77-2356
...v. State, 232 Ga. 470, 471(2), 207 S.E.2d 457 (1974); Simmons v. State, 226 Ga. 110, 111(1a), 172 S.E.2d 680 (1970); Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 667, 82 S.E.2d 217 (1954).' " 220 S.E.2d at 916. Faced with this outcome, Tennon sought review in the United States Supreme Court. The petitio......
-
Cauley v. State, Nos. 48422
...566. See also Williams v. State, 31 Ga.App. 173(3), 120 S.E. 131. The objection is waived unless properly challenged. Williams v. State, 210 Ga. 665, 667, 82 S.E.2d The state contends that a full panel was put upon the defendant when it had 65 jurors in it, and that the excusing of 20 of th......