Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Jones v. Georgia
Jones v. Ga., 19 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1967)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1967-10-16
- Topic
- general
holding that the mathematical disparity between 19.7% of African Americans in the population and 4.7% of African Americans on grand jury lists was adequate for a prima facie case under an equal protection analysis | finding of discrimination based entirely on jury selection statistics and absence of explanation | finding of discrimination based entirely on jury selection statistics and absence of explanation | Negroes constituting 19.7% of the taxpayers limited to 5% of those on the jury list | Negroes constituting 19.7% of the taxpayers limited to 5% of those on the jury list | disparities of 6%, 9%, and 12% in three consecutive years sufficient, along with opportunity for systematic exclusion, to call for evidentiary hearing of how jury-selection statutes are administered | opportunity to discriminate where the source, tax digests, was maintained on segregated basis | 19.7% of blacks on tax lists but only 5% of grand jury lists | Supreme Court was unpersuaded by lower court's finding that "public officers are presumed to have discharged their sworn official duties [including] eliminat[ing] prospective [black] jurors on the basis of their competency to serve, rather than because of racial discrimination." | Supreme Court was unpersuaded by lower court’s finding that “public officers are presumed to have discharged their sworn official duties [including] eliminating] prospective [black] jurors on the basis of their competency to serve, rather than because of racial discrimination.” | 19.7% of tax lists, 5% of jury list | 19.7% of tax lists, 5% of jury list | 19.7% of eligible population; 5% of grand jury list | 19.7% Negroes as taxpayers, 5% on jury lists | 30.7% of community, 5% of jury pool | 19.7% of tax lists, 5% of jury list | 19.7% of tax lists, 5% of jury list
Citator
- Cited by
- 88 opinions
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
Petitioner appealed his conviction for murder to the Georgia Supreme Court where he sought reversal on the ground, among others, that the evidence relevant to his claim of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries drawn in the county established a prima facie case of the denial of equal protection within our *25 decision in Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545. * The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction stating that Whitus was distinguishable because “public officers are presumed to have discharged their sworn official duties. . . . Under the testimony in this case we can not assume that the jury commissioners did not eliminate prospective jurors on the basis of their competency to serve, rather than because of racial discrimination.” 223 Ga. 157, 162, 154 S. E. 2d 228, 232.
We hold that the burden upon the State to explain “the disparity between the percentage of Negroes on the tax digest and those on the venires,” Whitus, supra, at 552, was not met by the Georgia Supreme Court’s reliance on the stated presumptions. See Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773; Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584; Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 375; Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559; Cassell v. Texas, 339 U. S. 282; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion.
It is so ordered.
The record supports the following comparison of the salient facts in Whitus and in petitioner’s case:
Over 21 population Whitus 42.6% Negro men Petitioner’s case 30.7% Negro
Jury Commissioners White (apparently) White
Source of juror names Tax Digests separated and identified as to race 3 Tax Digests, two of which separated and identified as to race
Taxpayers 27.1% Negro 19.7% Negro
Negro jurors 9.1% grand jury venire 7.8% petit jury venire 5.0% of jury list and box (1 Negro was on the grand jury which in-dieted petitioner)
Rebuttal evidence by State None None