Woodruff v. Breazeale
Decision Date | 27 September 1967 |
Docket Number | No. GC6554.,GC6554. |
Citation | 291 F. Supp. 130 |
Parties | E. L. WOODRUFF, Petitioner, v. C. E. BREAZEALE, Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Alvin J. Bronstein, Jackson, Miss., for petitioner.
Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., of the State of Mississippi, Jackson, Miss., for respondent.
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner attacks the validity of his conviction in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Mississippi, in March, 1962. He is a prisoner in the Mississippi State Penitentiary and began these proceedings pro se. However, he has for some time been represented by competent counsel of the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union. A number of issues were tendered and issue joined thereon which are not now necessary to consider, since the parties have agreed that the only issue for determination is whether vel non the petitioner, E. L. Woodruff (a white man), can claim the systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury lists and from the grand and petit juries of Calhoun County, Mississippi, that indicted and tried him, as a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In accordance with the aforementioned stipulated single issue, this opinion will deal with that issue only.1
Based upon stipulated population statistics, this court finds (for the purpose of this proceeding only) that for a period of five years before the March Term 1962 of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Mississippi, no Negroes served on either grand or petit juries, and there were no Negroes on the jury lists during that period. Subject to the same limitation, the court finds that no Negroes served on the Calhoun County grand jury which indicted the petitioner in March of 1962; that no Negroes served on the petit jury before whom petitioner was tried and that there were no Negroes on the jury lists for the March Term 1962 of the Calhoun County Circuit Court.
Only one case has been cited, and no other has been found, which has considered the precise question here presented and decided it favorably to petitioner's position here. In Allen v. State, 110 Ga.App. 56, 137 S.E.2d 711 (1964), it was held that a white defendant could complain of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury lists on the basis of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The thrust of that court's opinion was that a defendant was not only entitled to a jury from which members of his class were not excluded, but to a jury which was free from arbitrary exclusion of any class. Petitioner takes comfort in the language from Allen following:
The United States Supreme Court has spoken, however, in language that leads us to believe that a defendant need not be a member of the Negro race to complain of the systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury list. The exclusionary practice condemned by the Fourteenth Amendment does not depend upon the exclusion from juries of a group to which the defendant belongs or identifies himself, but on the resulting failure of the jury to represent a cross-section of the community.
However, it is apparent that the Allen court was led into its position by reliance upon cases decided in the federal system dealing with federal juries alone.2 There are many of them. None of them have applicability here.3 The correct rule which is applicable here was announced by the Supreme Court in Fay v. People of State of New York, 332 U. S. 261, 67 S.Ct. 1613, 91 L.Ed. 2043 (1947), where it was said:
So far as this court now knows, the Supreme Court has never sustained a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Sirhan
...applied in cases involving attacks upon grand juries or petit juries. (Salisbury v. Grimes (5th Cir.) 406 F.2d 50, 51; Woodruff v. Breazale, D.C., 291 F.Supp. 130 (affd. 5 Cir., 401 F.2d 997); In re Wells, 20 Cal.App.3d 640, 649, 98 Cal.Rptr. 1; Ganz v. Justice Court, Supra, 273 Cal.App.2d ......
-
United States v. Butera
...362 F.2d 763, 764 (4th Cir. 1966). However, as the decision affirmed in Woodruff and relied on in Salisbury — Woodruff v. Breazeale, 291 F.Supp. 130 (N.D.Miss. 1967) — makes clear, this "same class" rule is only intended to apply to state juries, not federal juries. Without necessarily appr......
-
Blanton v. State
...selecting the jury panel by systematically excluding Negroes therefrom. The appellant is a white man. In the case of Woodruff v. Breazeale, D.C., 291 F.Supp. 130 (1967), the issue was whether the petitioner (a white man) could claim the systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury lists, a......
-
Ferguson v. Dutton, 71-1827 Summary Calendar.
...Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I. 1 See Mosley v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 346; Woodruff v. Breazeale, M.D. Miss., 1967, 291 F.Supp. 130, affirmed, 5 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 997. See also this Court's decision in Peters v. Kiff, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 370, revers......