rose
mitchell
argued
january
decided
july
respondents
negroes
indicted
county
grand
jury
tennessee
murder
filed
plea
abatement
seeking
dismissal
indictment
ground
inter
alia
foreman
grand
jury
selected
racially
discriminatory
fashion
hearing
plea
respondents
called
witnesses
jury
commissioners
testified
selection
grand
jury
venire
former
foreman
testified
never
known
negro
foreman
questioned
long
resided
country
current
foreman
stated
knowledge
whether
negro
ever
served
grand
jurors
foreman
served
respondents
indicated
none
testified
relative
selection
foreman
race
past
foremen
trial
denied
plea
subsequently
respondents
convicted
tennessee
criminal
appeals
affirmed
respondents
filed
habeas
corpus
petition
federal
district
dismissed
petition
finding
respondents
prima
facie
case
discrimination
selecting
grand
jury
foreman
rebutted
state
appeals
reversed
held
claims
racial
discrimination
selection
members
state
grand
jury
cognizable
federal
habeas
corpus
support
issuance
writ
setting
aside
conviction
ordering
indictment
quashed
notwithstanding
constitutional
impropriety
tainted
selection
petit
jury
guilt
established
beyond
reasonable
doubt
trial
free
constitutional
error
pp
discrimination
basis
race
selection
members
grand
jury
strikes
fundamental
values
judicial
system
society
whole
criminal
defendant
right
equal
protection
laws
denied
indicted
grand
jury
members
racial
group
purposefully
excluded
pp
costs
exist
permitting
federal
hear
claims
racial
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
reviewing
state
conviction
outweighed
recognized
policy
combatting
racial
discrimination
administration
justice
even
though
alternative
remedies
vindicate
rights
members
class
denied
chance
serve
grand
juries
fact
permitting
challenges
unconstitutional
state
action
defendants
main
avenue
fourteenth
amendment
rights
vindicated
context
pp
rationale
stone
powell
held
state
provided
opportunity
full
fair
litigation
fourth
amendment
claim
trial
direct
review
state
prisoner
may
granted
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
ground
evidence
obtained
unconstitutional
search
seizure
introduced
trial
extended
claim
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
indicts
habeas
petitioner
latter
claim
differs
fundamentally
application
habeas
fourth
amendment
exclusionary
rule
claim
concerns
allegations
trial
violated
fourteenth
amendment
operation
grand
jury
system
whereas
fourth
amendment
cases
courts
called
upon
evaluate
actions
police
seizing
evidence
moreover
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
involves
charges
state
officials
violating
direct
command
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
federal
statutes
passed
thereunder
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
federal
habeas
review
necessary
ensure
constitutional
defects
state
judiciary
grand
jury
selection
procedure
overlooked
state
judges
operate
system
pp
matter
law
respondents
failed
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
violation
equal
protection
clause
regard
selection
grand
jury
foreman
respondents
case
rested
entirely
testimony
two
former
foreman
current
foreman
since
ones
testified
selection
foreman
testimony
insufficient
establish
respondents
case
absent
evidence
total
number
foremen
appointed
judges
country
critical
period
time
difficult
say
number
negroes
appointed
foreman
even
zero
statistically
significant
make
case
discrimination
rule
exclusion
pp
blackmun
delivered
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
parts
iii
iv
burger
rehnquist
joined
parts
ii
white
stevens
joined
rehnquist
filed
statement
concurring
part
post
stewart
post
powell
post
filed
opinions
concurring
judgment
rehnquist
joined
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
joined
post
stevens
filed
opinion
dissenting
part
post
william
leech
attorney
general
tennessee
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
michael
terry
assistant
attorney
general
walter
kurtz
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondents
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
days
walter
barnett
mildred
matesich
filed
memorandum
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
federal
habeas
corpus
case
respondents
claim
victims
racial
discrimination
violation
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
selection
foreman
tennessee
grand
jury
indicted
murders
first
degree
case
comes
issue
discrimination
selection
venire
presented
concerned
selection
foreman
november
respondents
james
mitchell
james
nichols
two
men
jointly
indicted
grand
jury
tipton
country
tenn
four
charged
two
counts
murder
connection
shooting
deaths
patrons
robbery
place
known
white
cafe
prior
trial
respondents
filed
trial
written
pro
se
motion
nature
plea
abatement
app
sought
thereby
together
relief
dismissal
indictment
grounds
grand
jury
array
foreman
selected
racially
discriminatory
fashion
respondent
negro
appointed
counsel
represent
respondents
due
course
conducted
evidentiary
hearing
plea
abatement
hearing
testimony
behalf
respondents
taken
tipton
county
jury
commissioners
former
tipton
county
grand
jury
foremen
foreman
grand
jury
serving
time
respondents
indicted
members
grand
jury
clerk
witness
behalf
state
close
evidence
denied
plea
abatement
first
orally
written
order
without
comment
respondents
tried
jointly
jury
verdict
guilty
murder
count
returned
respondents
received
sentences
years
count
sentences
run
consecutively
credit
allowed
time
spent
jail
awaiting
trial
appeal
criminal
appeals
tennessee
affirmed
convictions
finding
respect
assignment
error
relating
plea
abatement
facts
demonstrate
systematic
exclusion
negroes
upon
racial
grounds
tennessee
denied
certiorari
respondents
filed
pro
se
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
district
western
district
tennessee
renewing
among
things
allegation
discrimination
selection
tipton
county
grand
jury
foreman
district
referred
petitions
magistrate
reviewing
evidence
introduced
state
hearing
plea
abatement
studying
method
selection
recommended
hold
evidentiary
hearing
grand
jury
jury
foreman
selection
issues
specifically
magistrate
concluded
respondents
presented
unrebutted
prima
facie
case
respect
selection
foreman
district
disagreed
magistrate
grand
jury
concluded
state
judge
ruled
correctly
issue
foreman
question
district
went
along
magistrate
ordered
state
make
response
state
submitted
affidavits
acting
foreman
grand
jury
indicted
respondents
state
trial
judge
appointed
foreman
basis
affidavits
petitions
ordered
dismissed
district
judge
however
granted
certificate
probable
cause
required
fed
rule
app
proc
app
respondents
appealed
appeals
sixth
circuit
appeals
reversed
deemed
unnecessary
resolve
respondents
contentions
concerning
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
venire
since
found
sufficient
grounds
reverse
respect
selection
foreman
remanded
case
instructions
entry
order
respondents
murder
convictions
set
aside
respondents
reindicted
within
days
released
granted
certiorari
consider
foreman
issue
ii
initially
address
two
arguments
aside
specific
facts
particular
case
go
question
whether
federal
matter
policy
hear
claims
racial
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
reviewing
state
conviction
first
consider
whether
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
considered
harmless
error
raised
direct
review
habeas
corpus
proceeding
defendant
found
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
properly
constituted
petit
jury
trial
merits
free
constitutional
error
second
consider
related
question
whether
claims
cognizable
longer
federal
habeas
corpus
light
decision
stone
powell
nearly
century
unbroken
line
cases
held
criminal
conviction
negro
stand
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
based
indictment
grand
jury
negroes
excluded
reason
race
alexander
louisiana
bush
kentucky
neal
delaware
see
castaneda
partida
criminal
defendant
entitled
require
state
deliberately
systematically
deny
members
race
right
participate
jurors
administration
justice
alexander
louisiana
accordingly
sufficient
proof
discrimination
violation
fourteenth
amendment
made
rebutted
uniformly
required
conviction
set
aside
indictment
returned
unconstitutionally
constituted
grand
jury
quashed
hill
texas
today
one
justice
among
served
years
since
strauder
west
virginia
departed
line
decisions
dissent
cassell
texas
justice
jackson
voiced
lone
objection
arguing
federal
courts
set
aside
criminal
convictions
solely
ground
discrimination
occurred
selection
grand
jury
long
constitutional
impropriety
tainted
selection
petit
jury
guilt
established
beyond
reasonable
doubt
trial
free
constitutional
error
cassell
dissent
noted
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
nothing
fairness
trial
guilt
innocence
defendant
reversal
based
discrimination
conflicted
another
principle
important
law
conviction
set
aside
errors
affecting
substantial
rights
accused
justice
jackson
discern
reason
permit
conflict
first
place
noted
convicted
defendant
suffered
possible
prejudice
unlike
petit
jury
grand
jury
sat
determine
probable
cause
hold
defendant
trial
consider
ultimate
issue
guilt
innocence
trial
heard
evidence
determined
sufficient
submit
case
trier
fact
trier
determined
defendant
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
justice
jackson
believed
hardly
lies
mouth
defendant
say
indictment
attributable
prejudice
circumstances
concluded
frivolous
contend
grand
jury
however
constituted
done
duty
way
indict
ibid
justice
jackson
believe
strauder
line
cases
justified
need
enforce
rights
discriminated
sit
grand
juries
without
regard
race
pointed
congress
made
crime
discriminate
manner
civil
remedies
law
equity
available
members
class
discriminated
accordingly
justice
jackson
held
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
however
great
wrong
toward
qualified
negroes
community
harmless
defendant
left
enforcement
fourteenth
amendment
interests
criminal
prosecutions
civil
actions
instituted
qualified
negroes
position
first
time
attracted
support
additional
members
expressed
separate
opinion
justice
stewart
case
echoing
cassell
dissent
separate
opinion
asserts
time
come
acknowledge
justice
jackson
position
unanswerable
hold
defendant
may
rely
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
overturn
otherwise
valid
conviction
post
argues
conviction
defendant
break
chain
events
preceded
notes
fourth
fifth
amendment
rights
violated
evidence
illegally
obtained
suppressed
prosecution
barred
altogether
post
separate
opinion
believes
interests
harmed
grand
jury
discrimination
may
protected
adequately
prosecutions
civil
actions
pretrial
remedies
available
defendants
circumstances
finds
heavy
social
cost
entailed
reversal
unjustified
especially
light
fact
defendant
suffered
prejudice
accordingly
separate
opinion
recognize
either
direct
review
application
writ
habeas
corpus
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
valid
ground
setting
aside
criminal
conviction
course
consistently
rejected
argument
done
implicitly
cases
reaffirmed
strauder
principle
context
grand
jury
discrimination
reece
georgia
alexander
louisiana
done
expressly
argument
pressed
guise
claim
constitutional
rights
defendant
violated
grand
jury
discrimination
since
indictment
brings
defendant
petit
jury
trial
pierre
louisiana
see
cassell
texas
frankfurter
concurring
clark
concurring
decline
depart
longstanding
consistent
practice
adhere
previous
decisions
discrimination
account
race
primary
evil
amendments
adopted
war
including
fourteenth
amendment
aimed
equal
protection
clause
central
fourteenth
amendment
prohibition
discriminatory
action
state
banned
types
purposeful
discrimination
state
basis
race
attempt
lift
burdens
placed
negroes
society
clear
earliest
cases
applying
equal
protection
clause
context
racial
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
first
concerned
broad
aspects
racial
discrimination
equal
protection
clause
designed
eradicate
fundamental
social
values
fourteenth
amendment
adopted
protect
even
though
addressed
issue
context
reviewing
individual
criminal
conviction
thus
first
case
establishing
principles
guided
decisions
years
framed
issue
terms
larger
concerns
racial
discrimination
general
understood
core
fourteenth
amendment
fact
colored
people
singled
expressly
denied
statute
right
participate
administration
law
jurors
color
though
citizens
may
respects
fully
qualified
practically
brand
upon
affixed
law
assertion
inferiority
stimulant
race
prejudice
impediment
securing
individuals
race
equal
justice
law
aims
secure
others
apprehension
prejudice
persons
might
denied
equal
protection
might
discrimination
inducement
bestow
upon
national
government
power
enforce
provision
state
shall
deny
equal
protection
laws
strauder
west
virginia
discrimination
basis
race
selection
members
grand
jury
thus
strikes
fundamental
values
judicial
system
society
whole
recognized
criminal
defendant
right
equal
protection
laws
denied
indicted
grand
jury
members
racial
group
purposefully
excluded
neal
delaware
reece
georgia
reason
also
reversed
conviction
ordered
indictment
quashed
cases
without
inquiry
whether
defendant
prejudiced
fact
discrimination
grand
jury
stage
since
beginning
held
discrimination
violation
fourteenth
amendment
proved
correct
wrong
quash
indictment
panel
error
corrected
superior
ultimately
upon
review
without
regard
prejudice
neal
delaware
quoting
virginia
rives
see
bush
kentucky
hill
texas
stated
state
liberty
impose
upon
one
charged
crime
discrimination
trial
procedure
constitution
act
congress
passed
pursuant
constitution
alike
forbid
liberty
grant
withhold
benefits
equal
protection
constitution
commands
merely
may
deem
defendant
innocent
guilty
tumey
ohio
state
function
assess
evidence
defendant
duty
well
state
see
throughout
procedure
bringing
justice
shall
enjoy
protection
constitution
guarantees
case
timely
objection
laid
bare
discrimination
selection
grand
jurors
conviction
stand
constitution
prohibits
procedure
obtained
equal
protection
laws
something
abstract
right
command
state
must
respect
benefits
every
person
may
demand
least
merit
constitutional
system
safeguards
extend
least
deserving
well
virtuous
event
believe
costs
exist
outweighed
strong
policy
consistently
recognized
combating
racial
discrimination
administration
justice
regardless
fact
alternative
remedies
remain
vindicate
rights
members
class
denied
chance
serve
grand
juries
fact
permitting
challenges
unconstitutional
state
action
defendants
main
avenue
fourteenth
amendment
rights
vindicated
context
prosecutions
rare
control
class
members
courts
civil
actions
expensive
maintain
lengthy
often
used
even
assuming
type
pretrial
procedure
open
defendant
petitioning
writ
habeas
corpus
federal
procedure
vindication
federal
constitutional
rights
turn
race
obtain
writ
state
commence
trial
think
better
view
leave
open
route
time
main
one
fourteenth
amendment
rights
context
grand
jury
discrimination
vindicated
also
deny
years
close
war
nearly
years
strauder
racial
forms
discrimination
still
remain
fact
life
administration
justice
society
whole
perhaps
today
discrimination
takes
form
subtle
less
real
pernicious
therefore
decline
reverse
course
decisions
long
standing
directed
racial
discrimination
administration
justice
cassell
texas
frankfurter
concurring
adhere
position
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
remains
valid
ground
setting
aside
criminal
conviction
state
makes
additional
argument
decision
stone
powell
extended
foreclose
grant
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
state
prisoner
ground
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
justice
powell
dissenting
castaneda
partida
joined
chief
justice
justice
rehnquist
least
inferentially
justice
stewart
specifically
observed
strong
case
may
made
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
cognizable
federal
habeas
corpus
stone
powell
connection
justice
powell
noted
claim
convicted
prisoner
grand
jury
discrimination
goes
moot
determination
grand
jury
sufficient
cause
proceed
trial
flaw
trial
concluded
stone
incremental
benefit
extending
habeas
corpus
means
correcting
unconstitutional
grand
jury
selection
procedures
might
viewed
outweighed
acknowledged
costs
values
vital
rational
system
criminal
justice
quoting
stone
state
echoes
arguments
contends
habeas
corpus
relief
granted
error
alleged
support
relief
affected
determination
guilt
case
stone
powell
argues
error
affected
trial
merits
moreover
relatively
minor
error
involving
nonvoting
foreman
grand
jury
entire
venire
issue
accordingly
following
interpretation
stone
state
contends
benefits
derived
extending
habeas
relief
case
outweighed
costs
associated
reversing
state
conviction
entered
upon
finding
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
trial
free
constitutional
error
stone
powell
however
carefully
limited
reach
opinion
stressed
decision
limit
review
concerned
scope
habeas
corpus
statute
authority
litigating
constitutional
claims
generally
emphasis
original
rather
made
clear
confining
ruling
cases
involving
judicially
created
exclusionary
rule
minimal
utility
applied
habeas
corpus
proceeding
sum
concluded
holding
federal
need
apply
exclusionary
rule
habeas
review
fourth
amendment
claim
absent
showing
state
prisoner
denied
opportunity
full
fair
litigation
claim
trial
direct
review
ibid
mindful
limited
reach
stone
conclude
claim
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
differs
fundamentally
application
habeas
fourth
amendment
exclusionary
rule
reasoning
stone
powell
extended
foreclose
habeas
review
claims
federal
first
place
claims
pressed
respondents
case
concern
allegations
trial
violated
fourteenth
amendment
operation
grand
jury
system
cases
one
trial
initially
must
decide
merits
claim
finding
facts
applying
law
facts
leads
us
doubt
claims
operation
grand
jury
system
violates
fourteenth
amendment
general
receive
type
full
fair
hearing
deemed
essential
holding
stone
see
fourth
amendment
cases
courts
called
upon
evaluate
actions
police
seizing
evidence
believed
state
courts
capable
performing
task
federal
habeas
courts
claims
state
judiciary
purposely
violated
equal
protection
clause
different
need
cases
ensure
independent
means
obtaining
review
federal
available
broader
basis
review
permit
federal
forum
must
available
full
fair
hearing
claims
beyond
fundamental
differences
claim
issue
claim
issue
stone
powell
allegations
grand
jury
discrimination
involve
charges
state
officials
violating
direct
command
fourteenth
amendment
federal
statutes
passed
amendment
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
since
first
days
adoption
amendment
recognized
direct
operation
equal
protection
clause
forbids
discriminate
selection
members
grand
jury
contrasts
situation
stone
considered
application
judicially
created
remedy
rather
personal
constitutional
right
indeed
whereas
fourteenth
amendment
terms
always
directly
applicable
fourth
amendment
attendant
exclusionary
rule
recently
applied
fully
context
federalism
concerns
motivated
adopt
rule
stone
powell
present
federal
courts
granted
relief
state
prisoners
upon
proof
proscribed
discrimination
nearly
century
see
virginia
rives
confirmation
habeas
corpus
remains
appropriate
vehicle
federal
courts
exercise
fourteenth
amendment
responsibilities
likely
increase
friction
federal
state
systems
justice
impair
maintenance
constitutional
balance
upon
doctrine
federalism
founded
stone
powell
quoting
schneckloth
bustamonte
powell
concurring
stone
rested
large
extent
perception
exclusionary
rule
minimal
value
applied
federal
habeas
proceeding
found
deterrent
value
exclusionary
rule
enhanced
possibility
conviction
obtained
state
affirmed
direct
review
might
overturned
collateral
proceedings
often
occurring
years
incarceration
defendant
believe
overall
educative
effect
exclusionary
rule
appreciably
diminished
claims
raised
federal
habeas
corpus
review
state
convictions
ibid
find
basis
say
federal
review
reveal
flaws
search
seizure
gone
undetected
trial
appeal
ibid
circumstances
concluded
benefits
applying
fourth
amendment
exclusionary
rule
federal
habeas
outweigh
costs
associated
none
reasoning
force
federal
habeas
review
necessary
ensure
constitutional
defects
state
judiciary
grand
jury
selection
procedure
overlooked
state
judges
operate
system
strong
reason
believe
federal
review
indeed
reveal
flaws
appreciated
state
judges
perhaps
close
operation
system
able
properly
evaluate
claims
system
defective
educative
deterrent
effect
federal
review
likely
great
since
state
officials
operate
system
judges
employees
judiciary
may
expected
take
note
federal
determination
procedures
unconstitutional
must
changed
note
also
stone
rested
extent
feeling
state
courts
capable
adjudicating
fourth
amendment
claims
federal
courts
allegation
state
judiciary
engages
discrimination
violation
fourteenth
amendment
need
preserve
independent
federal
habeas
review
allegation
federal
rights
transgressed
noted
case
judge
whose
conduct
respondents
challenged
decided
validity
challenge
also
true
concern
judicial
integrity
deprecated
stone
context
habeas
review
exclusionary
rule
issues
much
greater
concern
grand
jury
discrimination
cases
claim
discriminated
basis
race
given
case
brings
integrity
judicial
system
direct
question
force
justification
extending
federal
habeas
review
said
minimal
allegations
improper
judicial
conduct
made
pointed
discussion
cassell
dissent
tempting
exaggerate
costs
associated
quashing
indictment
returned
improperly
constituted
grand
jury
fact
costs
associated
quashing
indictment
significantly
less
associated
suppressing
evidence
evidence
suppressed
fourth
amendment
may
used
state
new
trial
though
highly
probative
issue
guilt
contrast
federal
quashes
indictment
state
remains
free
use
second
trial
evidence
employed
first
proceeding
prisoner
guilty
fact
less
likely
go
free
therefore
cases
involving
exclusionary
rule
hill
texas
providing
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
consequence
less
intrusion
state
system
criminal
justice
case
stone
finally
note
constitutional
interests
federal
adjudicating
claim
habeas
grand
jury
discrimination
seeks
vindicate
substantially
compelling
issue
stone
noted
discrimination
account
race
administration
justice
strikes
core
concerns
fourteenth
amendment
fundamental
values
society
legal
system
discrimination
war
basic
concepts
democratic
society
representative
government
smith
texas
infects
legal
system
strong
interest
making
available
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
outweighs
costs
associated
relief
therefore
decline
extend
rationale
stone
powell
claim
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
indicts
habeas
petitioner
hold
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
remains
available
provide
federal
forum
claims
iii
notwithstanding
holdings
claims
discrimination
selection
members
grand
jury
cognizable
federal
habeas
corpus
support
issuance
writ
setting
aside
state
conviction
ordering
indictment
quashed
remains
true
entitled
habeas
relief
present
respondents
required
prove
discrimination
standards
set
cases
order
show
equal
protection
violation
occurred
context
grand
jury
foreman
selection
defendant
must
show
procedure
employed
resulted
substantial
underrepresentation
race
identifiable
group
belongs
castaneda
partida
specifically
respondents
required
prove
prima
facie
case
regard
foreman
follows
first
step
establish
group
one
recognizable
distinct
class
singled
different
treatment
laws
written
applied
next
degree
underrepresentation
must
proved
comparing
proportion
group
total
population
proportion
called
serve
foreman
significant
period
time
method
proof
sometimes
called
rule
exclusion
held
available
method
proving
discrimination
jury
selection
delineated
class
finally
selection
procedure
susceptible
abuse
racially
neutral
supports
presumption
discrimination
raised
statistical
showing
ibid
question
course
respondents
negroes
members
group
recognizable
distinct
class
capable
singled
different
treatment
laws
hernandez
texas
one
may
assume
purposes
case
tennessee
method
selecting
grand
jury
foreman
susceptible
abuse
accordingly
turn
consideration
evidence
offered
respondents
attempt
prove
sufficient
underrepresentation
make
prima
facie
case
respondents
case
hearing
plea
abatement
consisted
entirety
following
respondents
first
called
witnesses
three
tipton
county
jury
commissioners
commissioners
white
testified
selection
grand
jury
venire
view
tennessee
method
foreman
selection
supra
testify
hardly
expected
testified
method
selection
foremen
neither
refer
race
past
foremen
respondents
next
called
two
former
foremen
current
foreman
tipton
county
grand
jury
first
frank
mcbride
testified
lifelong
resident
county
evidence
age
thus
years
lived
county
mcbride
stated
served
foreman
ten
twelve
years
ago
five
six
years
two
three
times
since
one
session
app
answer
respondents
inquiry
whether
ever
known
foreman
black
man
mcbride
said
sir
second
past
foreman
peyton
smith
stated
resided
tipton
county
life
inquiry
made
long
smith
testified
served
foreman
several
years
back
early
several
times
since
occasion
illness
foreman
time
like
mcbride
smith
answered
asked
whether
ever
known
negro
foreman
ibid
jimmy
naifeh
current
foreman
testified
served
approximately
two
years
know
ever
negro
foreman
county
grand
jury
inquiry
made
naifeh
length
time
lived
county
respondents
called
grand
jurors
foreman
serving
respondents
indicted
one
testified
relative
selection
foreman
race
past
foremen
testimony
individually
collectively
effect
one
among
number
negro
heard
one
witness
deputy
sheriff
respondents
case
one
voiced
prejudice
hostility
toward
respondents
race
consideration
fact
respondents
negroes
indeed
asked
whether
knew
whether
respondents
negroes
answered
negative
evidence
respondents
presented
support
case
rebuttal
state
called
clerk
trial
asked
question
relating
grand
jury
foremen
respondents
made
inquiry
topic
two
additional
facts
stressed
state
later
federal
habeas
proceeding
first
recruitment
term
temporary
former
foreman
smith
place
regular
foreman
naifeh
smith
testified
hearing
plea
abatement
naifeh
asked
come
appear
judge
asked
serve
state
argued
smith
selected
judge
believed
smith
view
experience
capable
temporary
replacement
regular
foreman
proper
motive
state
said
negated
claim
racial
discrimination
played
role
selection
smith
temporary
foreman
second
fact
temporary
foreman
vote
indictment
returned
respondents
see
voted
indict
temporary
foreman
vote
therefore
unnecessary
thus
state
argued
possible
error
selection
foreman
harmless
consequence
respondents
support
argument
federal
habeas
state
submitted
affidavit
judge
selected
temporary
foreman
permanent
foreman
presided
hearing
plea
abatement
well
respondents
trial
judge
served
since
period
seven
years
stated
naifeh
unable
serve
going
county
november
term
judge
went
say
appointed
smith
temporary
foreman
smith
experience
good
job
foreman
affidavit
concluded
five
counties
black
grand
jury
foreman
although
black
member
jury
commission
one
county
grand
juries
petit
juries
sizeable
numbers
blacks
men
women
appoint
grand
jury
foreman
often
two
year
term
expires
usually
reappoint
thus
serve
long
time
problem
come
often
think
really
given
thought
appointing
black
foreman
feeling
appeals
reversing
conceded
facts
elicited
pretrial
hearing
meager
went
however
note
never
black
foreman
forewoman
grand
jury
tipton
county
according
recollections
trial
judge
three
jury
commissioners
three
former
foreman
fact
concluded
coupled
opportunity
discrimination
found
inherent
selection
system
sufficient
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
selection
foreman
appeals
held
state
failed
rebut
case
exculpatory
affidavit
judge
asserting
benign
reason
selection
foreman
view
serve
rebut
respondents
case
absence
proof
qualified
negroes
serve
foreman
fact
foreman
vote
held
similarly
support
district
judgment
since
broad
powers
exercised
foreman
conducting
grand
jury
proceedings
meant
respondents
prejudiced
even
though
foreman
cast
vote
iv
reaching
conclusion
disagreement
appeals
note
first
seems
overemphasized
exaggerated
evidence
support
conclusion
never
black
foreman
forewoman
grand
jury
tipton
county
appeals
believed
conclusion
proved
recollections
trial
judge
testimony
three
jury
commissioners
testimony
three
former
foremen
ibid
recollections
trial
judge
appeals
presumably
meant
affidavit
filed
federal
district
trial
judge
formed
part
case
put
respondents
indeed
appeals
seems
recognized
another
portion
opinion
considered
state
trial
judge
affidavit
offered
rebuttal
respondents
asserted
prima
facie
case
jury
commissioners
gave
testimony
whatsoever
relating
foremen
grand
jury
method
selecting
foremen
race
past
foremen
thus
respondents
prima
facie
case
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
foremen
rested
entirely
testimony
three
foremen
record
case
testimony
alone
upon
respondents
allegations
discrimination
must
stand
fall
testimony
three
foremen
however
establish
respondents
case
first
said
testimony
covered
significant
period
time
smith
testified
served
early
occasionally
thereafter
except
fact
smith
resident
county
negative
answer
question
whether
known
foreman
black
nothing
record
show
smith
knew
served
foremen
interim
years
serving
similarly
mcbride
testified
served
years
years
prior
hearing
two
three
occasions
since
known
negro
acted
foreman
grand
jury
gave
indication
knowledgeable
years
covered
service
naifeh
testimony
weakest
respondents
point
view
served
foreman
two
years
prior
hearing
know
one
way
whether
negro
served
foreman
county
grand
jury
thus
even
assuming
period
significant
one
purposes
case
respondents
evidence
covered
portions
time
left
number
years
period
evidence
whatsoever
offered
moreover
evidence
provided
testifying
foremen
little
force
mcbride
smith
simply
said
response
question
whether
either
ever
known
negro
foreman
naifeh
give
information
point
thus
positive
testimony
negro
ever
served
critical
period
time
testimony
three
foremen
served
parts
period
knowledge
indication
record
smith
mcbride
naifeh
necessarily
aware
negro
ever
served
foreman
important
evidence
total
number
foremen
appointed
judges
tipton
county
critical
period
time
absent
evidence
difficult
say
number
negroes
appointed
foreman
even
zero
statistically
significant
make
case
discrimination
rule
exclusion
testimony
record
concerning
negro
population
county
effect
approximately
app
given
fact
foreman
limited
number
terms
serve
given
inclination
part
judge
reappoint
likely
period
question
persons
actual
number
served
foremen
grand
jury
number
small
enough
disparity
ratio
negroes
chosen
foreman
total
number
foremen
ratio
negroes
total
population
county
might
sufficiently
large
unlikely
disparity
due
solely
chance
accident
castaneda
partida
inasmuch
evidence
record
number
foremen
appointed
possible
perform
calculations
comparisons
needed
permit
conclude
statistical
case
discrimination
made
proof
rule
exclusion
fails
see
hernandez
texas
comparison
proof
introduced
respondents
case
proof
offered
defendants
cases
found
prima
facie
case
made
instructive
norris
alabama
example
defendant
proved
case
witnesses
testified
number
negroes
called
jury
duty
evidence
support
prima
facie
case
summarized
appeared
negro
served
grand
petit
jury
county
within
memory
witnesses
lived
lives
testimony
effect
given
men
whose
ages
ran
fifty
years
testimony
uncontradicted
supported
testimony
officials
clerk
jury
commission
clerk
circuit
never
known
negro
serving
grand
jury
jackson
county
reporter
missed
session
county
years
two
jury
commissioners
testified
effect
one
latter
member
commission
made
jury
roll
grand
jury
found
indictment
testified
never
known
single
instance
negro
sat
grand
petit
jury
entire
history
county
comparison
evidence
norris
cited
cases
stands
stark
contrast
evidence
present
case
establish
prima
facie
case
testimony
two
former
foremen
briefly
serving
present
foreman
knowledge
negro
served
evidence
foremen
knowledgeable
years
ones
served
evidence
fill
gaps
years
serve
contrast
norris
direct
assertion
long
periods
time
negro
ever
served
officials
access
county
records
state
none
ever
served
basis
record
upon
determine
even
assuming
negro
ever
served
foreman
fact
statistically
significant
support
inference
disparity
negroes
serving
negro
population
county
result
discrimination
violation
fourteenth
amendment
thus
error
district
concluded
initially
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
error
well
appeals
reached
final
conclusion
state
however
questioning
oral
argument
tended
concede
finding
prima
facie
case
established
correct
contest
tr
oral
arg
brief
although
described
proof
questionable
brief
petitioner
normally
flat
concession
state
might
given
effect
inadequacy
respondents
proof
plain
error
appeals
exaggerating
extent
proof
equally
plain
decline
overlook
fundamental
defect
respondents
case
accordingly
hold
matter
law
respondents
failed
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
violation
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
regard
selection
grand
jury
foreman
judgment
appeals
therefore
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
tennessee
grand
jury
composed
grand
jurors
code
ann
foreman
forewoman
shall
thirteenth
member
grand
jury
organized
term
office
equal
power
authority
matters
coming
grand
jury
members
thereof
supp
foreman
forewoman
appointed
term
two
years
judge
criminal
jurisdiction
county
ibid
limitation
reappointment
foreman
forewoman
must
least
years
age
shall
good
lawful
man
woman
possess
qualifications
required
tennessee
jurors
supp
see
supp
members
grand
jury
foreman
forewoman
selected
operation
key
man
system
whereby
three
jury
commissioners
compile
list
qualified
potential
jurors
grand
jurors
selected
random
see
supp
twelve
members
grand
jury
must
concur
order
return
indictment
foreman
forewoman
may
bolen
state
crim
app
foreman
forewoman
acts
chairman
presiding
officer
state
collins
charged
duty
assisting
district
attorney
investigating
crime
may
order
issuance
subpoenas
witnesses
grand
jury
may
administer
oaths
grand
jury
witnesses
must
endorse
every
bill
returned
grand
jury
must
present
indictment
presence
grand
jury
code
ann
supp
absence
foreman
endorsement
makes
indictment
fatally
defective
bird
state
castaneda
partida
noted
among
cases
applied
principle
circumstances
involving
grand
jury
discrimination
bush
kentucky
carter
texas
rogers
alabama
pierre
louisiana
smith
texas
hill
texas
cassell
texas
reece
georgia
eubanks
louisiana
arnold
north
carolina
alexander
louisiana
view
disposition
case
merits
may
assume
without
deciding
discrimination
regard
selection
foreman
requires
subsequent
conviction
set
aside
discrimination
proved
tainted
selection
entire
grand
jury
venire
see
carter
jury
title
provides
citizen
possessing
qualifications
may
prescribed
law
shall
disqualified
service
grand
petit
juror
state
account
race
color
previous
condition
servitude
whoever
officer
person
charged
duty
selection
summoning
jurors
excludes
fails
summon
citizen
cause
shall
fined
state
makes
variation
argument
contending
constitutional
error
occurred
selection
foreman
grand
jury
moot
procedural
error
effect
integrity
trial
brief
petitioner
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
light
subsequent
conviction
properly
constituted
petit
jury
fact
constitutional
requirement
institute
prosecutions
means
indictment
returned
grand
jury
see
hurtado
california
relieve
employ
grand
juries
complying
commands
fourteenth
amendment
operation
juries
contention
case
respondents
sought
press
challenge
grand
jury
without
complying
state
procedural
rules
claims
may
raised
see
francis
henderson
seek
press
challenge
pleading
guilty
see
tollett
henderson
stone
powell
issue
raised
petition
rehearing
appeals
app
denying
petition
stated
issues
raised
therein
fully
considered
upon
original
submission
decision
case
opinion
denying
respondents
motion
amendment
judgment
district
found
original
ruling
denying
writ
bolstered
decision
stone
app
record
indicates
one
grand
juror
florida
time
hearing
app
census
figure
bureau
census
census
population
characteristics
population
part
tennessee
table
respondents
urge
us
fill
gap
proof
reference
history
race
relations
tennessee
fact
state
past
years
practiced
de
jure
discrimination
negroes
many
ways
decline
reference
history
texts
case
kind
supply
respondents
failed
prove
otherwise
one
alleging
discrimination
always
able
prove
case
simply
referring
history
discrimination
within
state
cases
however
make
clear
required
establish
violation
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
state
case
apparently
places
reliance
provides
relevant
part
determination
hearing
merits
factual
issue
made
state
competent
jurisdiction
evidenced
written
finding
written
opinion
reliable
adequate
written
indicia
shall
presumed
correct
unless
applicant
shall
establish
shall
otherwise
appear
merits
factual
dispute
resolved
state
hearing
see
lavallee
delle
rose
justice
rehnquist
concurring
part
fully
agree
joined
separate
opinions
brothers
stewart
powell
concurring
judgment
case
separate
reasons
state
neither
reach
merits
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
decides
since
however
majority
rejects
views
join
parts
iii
iv
opinion
justice
stewart
justice
rehnquist
joins
concurring
judgment
respondents
found
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
fair
wholly
constitutional
jury
trial
persons
entitled
convictions
set
aside
ground
grand
jury
indicted
improperly
constituted
question
asked
years
ago
justice
jackson
cassell
texas
dissenting
opinion
never
answered
think
time
come
acknowledge
justice
jackson
question
unanswerable
hold
defendant
may
rely
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
overturn
otherwise
valid
conviction
grand
jury
proceeding
ex
parte
investigation
determine
whether
crime
committed
whether
criminal
proceedings
instituted
person
calandra
proceeding
guilt
innocence
defendant
determined
merely
one
decide
whether
prima
facie
case
possible
prejudice
defendant
resulting
indictment
returned
invalid
grand
jury
thus
disappears
constitutionally
valid
trial
jury
later
finds
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
short
convicted
defendant
alleges
indicted
discriminatorily
selected
grand
jury
complaining
antecedent
constitutional
violation
conceivable
impact
fairness
trial
resulted
conviction
well
settled
deprivations
constitutional
rights
occur
trial
bar
conviction
unless
impact
upon
trial
conviction
trial
like
guilty
plea
represents
break
chain
events
preceded
criminal
process
tollett
henderson
see
blue
cf
stroble
california
illegal
acts
state
officials
prior
trial
relevant
bear
petitioner
contention
deprived
fair
trial
cases
dealing
unlawful
arrest
particularly
instructive
unconstitutional
arrests
unreasonable
seizures
person
violate
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
terry
ohio
yet
illegal
arrest
detention
void
subsequent
conviction
gerstein
pugh
frisbie
collins
example
defendant
forcibly
abducted
one
state
brought
another
stand
trial
trial
fair
upheld
conviction
see
also
mahon
justice
ker
illinois
cases
specifically
dealing
grand
jury
proceedings
equally
instructive
costello
sustained
conviction
defendant
sought
dismiss
charges
ground
indictment
based
exclusively
upon
inadmissible
hearsay
evidence
see
also
holt
lawn
held
defendant
avoid
trial
conviction
ground
indictment
procured
evidence
obtained
violation
fifth
amendment
indictment
valid
face
subject
challenge
ground
grand
jury
acted
basis
inadequate
incompetent
evidence
even
basis
information
obtained
violation
defendant
fifth
amendment
privilege
calandra
supra
cf
gelbard
general
rule
defendant
entitled
indictment
dismissed
trial
simply
government
acquire
incriminating
evidence
violation
rule
even
tainted
evidence
presented
grand
jury
blue
supra
ii
person
indicted
basis
incompetent
illegal
evidence
suffered
demonstrable
prejudice
contrast
prejudice
suffered
defendant
indicted
unconstitutionally
chosen
grand
jury
speculative
best
likely
nonexistent
course
interests
implicated
state
systematically
excludes
qualified
negroes
grand
jury
service
discrimination
denies
negroes
right
participate
equally
responsibilities
citizenship
compelling
constitutional
interest
nation
eliminating
forms
racial
discrimination
requires
group
qualified
citizens
excluded
participation
either
grand
petit
jurors
administration
justice
interests
fully
vindicated
however
means
setting
aside
valid
criminal
convictions
held
example
negroes
obtain
injunctive
relief
remedy
unconstitutional
exclusion
grand
petit
jury
service
carter
jury
greene
county
turner
fouche
remedy
advantage
allowing
members
class
actually
injured
grand
jury
discrimination
vindicate
rights
without
heavy
societal
cost
entailed
valid
criminal
convictions
overturned
moreover
congress
made
criminal
offense
public
official
exclude
person
grand
petit
jury
basis
race
defendants
may
also
pretrial
remedies
unlawful
indictments
justice
jackson
stated
cassell
case
hardly
lies
mouth
defendant
fairly
chosen
trial
jury
found
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
say
indictment
attributable
prejudice
reasons
believe
claim
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
foreman
ground
setting
aside
valid
criminal
conviction
accordingly
concur
judgment
proffering
answer
today
relies
historical
precedents
duty
courts
apply
equal
protection
clause
special
vigor
area
racial
discrimination
first
ground
recall
justice
frankfurter
said
wisdom
often
never
comes
one
reject
merely
comes
late
henslee
union
planters
bank
dissenting
opinion
second
ground
agree
wholeheartedly
general
view
equal
protection
clause
believe
explained
opinion
constitutional
guarantee
protects
victims
discrimination
rather
defendants
convicted
fair
trials
lawfully
constituted
juries
constitutional
requirement
state
criminal
prosecution
even
initiated
grand
jury
state
free
bring
criminal
charge
information
filed
prosecutor
hurtado
california
held
defendant
entitled
judicial
oversight
review
decision
prosecute
gerstein
pugh
coleman
alabama
vacated
conviction
situation
state
failed
provide
defendant
appointed
counsel
preliminary
hearing
holding
premised
opportunity
defense
counsel
preliminary
hearing
develop
record
useful
impeachment
purposes
trial
favorable
testimony
witness
appear
trial
also
preserved
addition
emphasized
ability
counsel
preliminary
hearing
discover
substance
prosecution
case
thus
prepare
effective
trial
defense
similarly
defendant
immune
prosecution
outstanding
indictment
searched
violation
fourth
amendment
rights
interrogated
violation
miranda
rights
illegally
obtained
evidence
may
excluded
trial
prosecution
barred
altogether
drastic
step
might
advance
marginally
ends
served
exclusionary
rules
also
increase
intolerable
degree
interference
public
interest
guilty
brought
book
blue
negroes
class
directly
affected
grand
jury
discrimination
first
recognized
landmark
case
strauder
west
virginia
stated
fact
colored
people
singled
expressly
denied
statute
right
participate
administration
law
jurors
color
though
citizens
may
respects
fully
qualified
practically
brand
upon
affixed
law
assertion
inferiority
stimulant
race
prejudice
impediment
securing
individuals
race
equal
justice
law
aims
secure
others
since
qualified
negroes
vindicate
rights
directly
rationale
allowing
defendant
convicted
constitutional
petit
jury
assert
rights
negroes
excluded
grand
jury
undermined
constitutionality
statute
upheld
ex
parte
virginia
justice
powell
justice
rehnquist
joins
concurring
judgment
agree
respondents
convictions
overturned
holds
respondents
failed
show
prima
facie
case
discrimination
selection
foreman
grand
jury
indicted
fundamental
reason
exists
however
reversing
judgment
appeals
respondents
found
guilty
murder
beyond
reasonable
doubt
petit
jury
whose
composition
questioned
following
trial
fair
every
respect
furthermore
respondents
given
full
fair
opportunity
litigate
state
courts
claim
discrimination
circumstances
allowing
attack
selection
grand
jury
case
abuse
federal
habeas
corpus
whenever
federal
called
upon
state
prisoner
issue
writ
habeas
corpus
asked
two
things
undertaken
restraint
respect
way
system
justice
structured
first
one
general
jurisdiction
requested
entertain
collateral
attack
upon
final
judgment
another
general
jurisdiction
second
contrary
principles
federalism
lower
federal
asked
review
state
trial
judgment
almost
invariably
judgment
highest
state
well
considerations
prompt
one
inquire
critically
ever
whether
appropriate
allow
use
habeas
corpus
state
prisoners
seek
protect
personal
interest
justness
convictions
history
purpose
writ
habeas
corpus
support
application
writ
suggested
five
members
today
originally
writ
granted
criminal
trial
without
jurisdiction
entertain
action
see
ex
parte
watkins
pet
schechtman
foster
cert
denied
schneckloth
bustamonte
powell
concurring
oaks
legal
history
high
habeas
corpus
rev
bator
finality
criminal
law
federal
habeas
corpus
state
prisoners
harv
rev
hereinafter
bator
subsequently
scope
writ
modestly
expanded
encompass
cases
defendant
federal
constitutional
claims
considered
proceeding
see
frank
mangum
recent
years
extended
habeas
corpus
far
beyond
historical
uses
writ
put
today
federal
habeas
granted
variety
situations
although
trial
plainly
jurisdiction
case
defendant
constitutional
claims
fully
fairly
considered
state
courts
sort
constitutional
error
found
committed
brown
allen
see
fay
noia
harlan
dissenting
suggest
revert
conception
writ
limit
habeas
corpus
circumstances
trial
lacked
jurisdiction
enter
competent
judgment
expanding
scope
habeas
corpus
however
seems
lost
sight
entirely
historical
purpose
writ
come
accept
review
federal
district
courts
judgments
criminal
cases
rule
rather
exception
federal
constitutional
challenges
raised
almost
every
state
criminal
case
part
every
lawyer
knows
claims
provide
nearly
automatic
federal
habeas
corpus
review
extend
habeas
corpus
encompass
constitutional
claims
unrelated
fairness
trial
claimant
convicted
take
another
long
step
toward
creation
dual
system
review
defendant
convicted
crime
state
exhausted
remedies
state
system
repeats
process
federal
system
extent
duplication
already
exists
country
without
parallel
system
justice
world
simply
heeded
admonition
thoughtful
scholars
federal
habeas
corpus
made
instrument
merits
cases
legal
system
ended
detention
bator
mishkin
shapiro
wechsler
hart
wechsler
federal
courts
federal
system
ed
see
bator
today
case
extreme
example
loss
historical
perspective
extending
use
writ
circumstances
wholly
unrelated
purpose
move
beyond
anything
heretofore
decided
cases
true
number
occasions
considered
state
grand
jury
discrimination
prior
decision
fairly
viewed
authority
federal
habeas
corpus
review
absence
challenge
fairness
trial
strauder
west
virginia
progeny
involved
cases
composition
grand
petit
juries
challenged
integrity
trial
issue
cases
pierre
louisiana
hill
texas
question
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
presented
direct
appeal
occasion
consider
propriety
federal
collateral
attack
finally
castaneda
partida
charge
grand
jury
discrimination
habeas
corpus
propriety
use
habeas
corpus
assert
claim
raised
hence
decided
powell
dissenting
today
therefore
open
question
whether
federal
habeas
corpus
granted
state
prisoner
solely
prisoner
grand
jury
discriminatorily
chosen
ii
makes
pretense
arguing
either
history
purpose
writ
habeas
corpus
supports
extension
case
claimant
concededly
found
guilty
fair
trial
rather
looks
policies
fourteenth
amendment
justification
noting
amendment
purpose
eliminate
racial
discrimination
respondents
allege
apart
fact
appropriate
means
available
attacking
discrimination
selection
grand
juries
fourteenth
amendment
irrelevant
principled
determination
writ
habeas
corpus
proper
remedy
know
nothing
language
history
fourteenth
amendment
civil
rights
statutes
implementing
suggests
special
use
writ
habeas
corpus
however
assume
open
extend
writ
cases
guilt
incarcerated
claimant
issue
least
weigh
thoughtfully
societal
costs
may
involved
fully
addressed
concurring
opinion
schneckloth
bustamonte
mention
principal
costs
briefly
habeas
corpus
unique
remedy
allows
one
general
jurisdiction
review
correctness
judgment
another
general
jurisdiction
exercise
entails
certain
costs
inherent
whenever
dual
review
common
knowledge
prisoner
actions
occupy
disproportionate
amount
time
energy
federal
judiciary
year
ending
june
almost
prisoner
actions
filed
habeas
corpus
petitions
see
annual
report
director
administrative
office
courts
apart
burden
petitions
many
frivolous
collateral
review
particularly
deleterious
effect
upon
deterrent
rehabilitative
functions
criminal
justice
system
see
wainwright
sykes
sanders
harlan
dissenting
bator
friendly
innocence
irrelevant
collateral
attack
criminal
judgments
chi
rev
perhaps
serious
cost
extending
federal
habeas
corpus
review
state
judgments
effect
upon
federal
structure
government
justice
black
emphasized
importance
proper
respect
state
functions
recognition
fact
entire
country
made
union
separate
state
governments
continuance
belief
national
government
fare
best
institutions
left
free
perform
separate
functions
separate
ways
younger
harris
overextension
habeas
corpus
federal
courts
simply
threaten
essential
role
federal
system
runs
afoul
principle
primary
state
jurisdiction
criminal
laws
repeatedly
asserted
interference
state
operations
merely
academic
review
single
federal
district
judge
considered
judgment
state
trial
intermediate
appellate
highest
state
necessarily
denigrates
institutions
expansion
dual
system
review
therefore
inflicts
substantial
costs
society
system
justice
federal
fabric
claim
vindicated
federal
habeas
corpus
individual
claimant
unjustly
incarcerated
costs
justified
purpose
great
writ
provide
means
legality
individual
incarceration
may
tested
see
preiser
rodriguez
mcnally
hill
schneckloth
bustamonte
powell
concurring
indeed
providing
means
releasing
prisoners
custody
assure
innocent
person
incarcerated
objective
criminal
justice
system
see
jackson
virginia
ante
winship
harlan
concurring
preventing
discrimination
selection
grand
juries
also
goal
high
priority
system
question
simply
seems
think
whether
goal
interests
serves
important
habeas
corpus
general
writ
meant
promote
social
good
vindicate
societal
interests
even
highest
priority
question
rather
whether
ancient
writ
developed
law
serve
precise
particular
purpose
properly
may
employed
furthering
general
societal
goal
grand
jury
integrity
provision
indictment
grand
jury
protect
innocent
defendants
unjust
convictions
rather
helps
assure
innocent
persons
made
unjustly
stand
trial
defendant
found
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
fairly
drawn
petit
jury
following
fair
trial
hardly
claim
unjust
made
stand
trial
need
protect
innocent
incarceration
implicated
cases
writ
habeas
corpus
appropriate
remedy
remedies
provided
protect
society
interest
eliminating
racial
discrimination
selection
serve
grand
juries
see
supra
iii
sum
view
extension
today
federal
habeas
corpus
wholly
odds
history
purpose
writ
furthermore
careful
analysis
costs
benefits
approach
plainly
shows
habeas
corpus
available
vindication
claims
respondents
grand
jury
discrimination
claim
nothing
fairness
claimant
conviction
courts
often
tempted
reach
available
remedy
claim
intrinsic
importance
view
however
unprincipled
way
administer
judicial
process
especially
remedies
available
protect
interests
stake
therefore
hold
challenge
composition
state
prisoner
grand
jury
raised
collateral
federal
challenge
incarceration
provided
full
fair
opportunity
provided
state
courts
consideration
federal
claim
advocates
opponents
broad
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
recognized
unusual
role
great
writ
plays
federal
system
see
bator
finality
criminal
law
federal
habeas
corpus
state
prisoners
harv
rev
reitz
federal
habeas
corpus
impact
abortive
state
proceeding
harv
rev
may
state
claimant
rerun
conviction
federal
courts
also
limit
number
habeas
corpus
petitions
claimant
may
file
jailhouse
lawyers
prisons
country
conduct
flourishing
business
repetitive
habeas
corpus
petitions
unusual
see
score
petitions
filed
period
years
claimant
although
opinion
discusses
extension
habeas
corpus
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
discussion
unnecessary
view
conclusion
prima
facie
case
discrimination
made
respondents
indeed
may
fairly
questioned
whether
part
ii
opinion
part
holding
four
members
join
support
even
judgment
explicitly
bases
extension
habeas
corpus
case
upon
conclusion
constitutional
interests
involved
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
compelling
involved
constitutional
claims
see
ante
clear
however
possible
cabin
rule
cases
racial
discrimination
alleged
course
numerous
constitutional
challenges
grand
jury
indictments
nothing
racial
discrimination
logic
position
may
lead
extension
habeas
corpus
every
conceivable
constitutional
defect
indictments
justice
stewart
points
federal
statute
makes
crime
discriminate
basis
race
selection
jurors
government
private
actions
may
brought
improperly
excluded
jury
service
see
carter
jury
greene
county
furthermore
past
allowed
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
made
direct
appeal
conviction
see
cassell
texas
see
infra
suggests
federalism
concerns
present
fairness
indictment
challenged
federal
habeas
ederal
courts
granted
relief
state
prisoners
upon
proof
proscribed
discrimination
nearly
century
see
virginia
rives
ante
logic
reasoning
mere
fact
federal
courts
reviewed
decisions
nearly
century
hardly
supports
conclusion
federalism
concerns
exist
virginia
rives
support
argument
case
petitioner
challenged
composition
petit
jury
well
grand
jury
indicted
whenever
fairness
petit
jury
brought
question
doubts
raised
integrity
process
found
prisoner
guilty
see
cassell
texas
supra
jackson
dissenting
collateral
relief
therefore
may
justified
even
though
entails
damages
federal
fabric
see
infra
implies
state
trial
judges
trusted
rule
fairly
issue
presented
involved
administratively
selection
grand
jury
ante
view
find
wholly
unacceptable
numerous
circumstances
trial
judges
called
upon
rule
validity
judicial
administrative
action
know
general
constitutional
rule
requiring
disqualification
cases
certainly
accept
assumption
point
history
state
judges
particular
trusted
fairly
consider
claims
racial
discrimination
see
schneckloth
bustamonte
powell
concurring
also
justify
collateral
review
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
damage
discrimination
perceived
integrity
judicial
system
whole
ignores
damage
done
society
perception
criminal
justice
system
allowing
valid
convictions
reversed
collateral
attack
basis
claims
nothing
defendant
guilt
innocence
moreover
discriminatory
action
notorious
undermine
public
faith
fairness
judiciary
likely
remedied
direct
review
state
courts
although
need
reach
question
case
find
much
justice
stewart
says
persuasive
question
whether
complaints
concerning
fairness
indictment
survive
conviction
even
purposes
direct
appeal
see
ante
dissenting
opinion
cassell
texas
justice
jackson
suggested
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
case
however
great
wrong
toward
qualified
negroes
community
harmless
defendant
today
never
undertaken
answer
justice
jackson
arguments
cassell
completely
satisfied
today
attempt
purposes
opinion
however
shall
assume
direct
review
respondents
claims
appropriate
finding
support
prior
decisions
today
extension
habeas
corpus
considers
whether
decision
stone
powell
forbids
federal
courts
grant
habeas
corpus
cases
stone
course
address
proper
method
presenting
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
involved
claims
fourth
amendment
exclusionary
rule
nonetheless
overstates
differences
stone
present
case
see
ante
sure
stone
powell
supra
emphasized
fourth
amendment
exclusionary
rule
judicially
created
remedy
rather
personal
constitutional
right
however
rejecting
suggestion
dissent
decision
lead
drastic
withdrawal
federal
habeas
jurisdiction
extent
might
unlimited
stone
recognized
fourth
amendment
exclusionary
rule
designed
protect
right
individual
free
unjust
conviction
thus
justification
undermining
finality
judgments
exists
many
habeas
corpus
actions
absent
properly
understood
therefore
rationale
decision
stone
consistent
denying
collateral
relief
claims
unfair
indictment
actually
presages
limitation
habeas
corpus
stated
text
right
indicted
discriminatorily
selected
grand
jury
like
right
improperly
obtained
highly
probative
evidence
introduced
trial
nothing
guilt
innocence
prisoner
justice
white
justice
stevens
joins
dissenting
although
agree
parts
ii
opinion
believe
prima
facie
case
purposeful
discrimination
made
rebutted
state
therefore
dissent
parts
iii
iv
judgment
basis
evidence
presented
evidentiary
hearing
state
district
concluded
respondents
appear
ed
made
prima
facie
case
discrimination
selection
foreman
grand
jury
indicted
app
however
upon
affidavits
submitted
state
response
concluded
fact
foreman
chosen
racial
reasons
voted
indictment
thus
violation
equal
protection
clause
appeals
agreed
prima
facie
case
shown
interpreting
record
testimony
effect
recollections
testifying
never
black
chosen
foreman
grand
jury
tipton
county
pointing
potential
discrimination
system
leaves
selection
foreman
discretion
single
judge
really
given
thought
appointing
black
see
appeals
disagreed
however
prima
facie
case
rebutted
testimony
selecting
judge
feeling
appointing
black
foreman
found
irrelevant
foreman
vote
respondents
indictment
sit
redetermine
factfindings
lower
courts
appeals
correctly
enunciated
applied
law
governing
proof
discrimination
context
grand
jury
selection
dissent
difference
case
previous
cases
voiding
conviction
due
discriminatory
selection
members
grand
jury
case
shown
grand
jury
foreman
vote
indictment
chosen
manner
prohibited
equal
protection
clause
agree
appeals
given
vital
importance
foreman
functioning
grand
juries
tennessee
conviction
based
indictment
foreman
chosen
discriminatory
fashion
void
conviction
entire
grand
jury
discriminatorily
selected
whether
showing
actual
prejudice
see
castaneda
partida
alexander
louisiana
arnold
north
carolina
eubanks
louisiana
cassell
texas
patton
mississippi
hill
texas
pierre
louisiana
bush
kentucky
case
involves
foreman
rather
entire
grand
jury
implications
manner
respondents
may
meet
burden
proving
discrimination
context
racial
discrimination
selection
juries
systematic
exclusion
negroes
unequal
application
law
show
intentional
discrimination
necessary
component
equal
protection
violation
washington
davis
generally
cases
found
unconstitutional
discrimination
jury
selection
alleging
discrimination
relied
upon
significant
statistical
discrepancy
percentage
underrepresented
group
population
percentage
group
called
serve
jurors
combined
selection
procedure
susceptible
abuse
racially
neutral
castaneda
partida
supra
see
alexander
louisiana
supra
turner
fouche
carter
jury
showing
made
burden
shifts
state
rebut
inference
discriminatory
purpose
castaneda
partida
supra
method
proof
sometimes
called
rule
exclusion
may
well
suited
focus
inquiry
single
officeholder
whose
term
lasts
two
full
years
true
tipton
county
grand
jury
foreman
instance
castaneda
partida
considered
statistics
relating
period
showing
persons
selected
grand
jury
duty
hispanic
general
population
hispanic
likelihood
statistical
discrepancy
explained
basis
chance
alone
less
see
sample
size
necessarily
considered
case
discrimination
selection
foreman
simply
permit
statistical
inference
overwhelming
castaneda
period
five
six
opportunities
selecting
jury
foremen
tipton
county
assuming
every
foreman
selected
serves
least
full
term
despite
inherent
difficulty
statistical
presentation
respect
discrimination
filling
particular
grand
jury
spot
respondents
nonetheless
made
strong
showing
underrepresentation
supporting
inference
purposeful
discrimination
position
reject
finding
explicitly
made
appeals
implicitly
made
district
testified
believed
never
black
foreman
period
see
berenyi
immigration
director
graver
mfg
linde
air
products
assuming
foreman
selections
made
period
expected
number
black
foremen
likelihood
blacks
chosen
less
blacks
constituted
nearly
third
county
population
whites
equal
chance
selected
see
respondents
expected
make
stronger
statistical
showing
event
possible
weakness
respondents
statistical
presentation
overcome
additional
evidence
district
first
selection
foreman
left
complete
discretion
single
person
circuit
judge
potentialities
abuse
system
obvious
cf
castaneda
partida
supra
carter
jury
supra
hernandez
texas
key
man
system
moreover
particular
judge
chose
foreman
respondents
grand
jury
never
chosen
black
five
counties
appointed
foremen
period
app
finally
judge
admitted
never
even
considered
appointing
black
foreman
ibid
although
facts
necessarily
inconsistent
ultimate
conclusion
respondents
foreman
chosen
racial
grounds
raise
conjunction
previously
described
statistical
presentation
strong
inference
intentional
racial
discrimination
shifting
burden
state
clearly
appeals
correct
circuit
judge
statement
nothing
appointing
blacks
sufficient
rebuttal
see
alexander
louisiana
turner
fouche
hernandez
texas
supra
hardly
said
judge
official
authorized
state
appoint
grand
jury
foremen
performed
constitutional
duty
pursue
course
conduct
administration
office
operate
discriminate
selection
jurors
racial
grounds
hill
texas
see
foreman
forewoman
vitally
important
functioning
grand
juries
tennessee
thirteenth
member
grand
jury
organized
term
office
equal
power
authority
matters
coming
grand
jury
members
thereof
code
ann
expected
assist
district
attorney
investigating
crime
may
administer
oaths
witnesses
conduct
questioning
witnesses
must
indorse
sign
indictments
like
every
chairperson
position
guide
whether
properly
improperly
process
body
omitted
key
numbers
compare
number
blacks
selected
foremen
total
number
opportunities
select
foreman
latter
number
may
greater
number
different
individuals
serve
appointing
judge
inclination
reappoint
previously
served
district
make
written
findings
fact
explaining
basis
conclusion
prima
facie
case
appeared
established
however
appeals
position
dispose
appeal
without
necessity
remand
district
record
district
conclusions
law
clearly
reveal
basis
conclusion
see
finney
arkansas
board
correction
failure
foremen
testified
hearing
recollect
black
foreman
inference
therefrom
clearly
erroneous
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
witnesses
believed
never
black
foreman
see
supra
doubt
evidence
adduced
hearing
respondents
plea
abatement
insufficient
perhaps
unequivocally
establish
race
every
foreman
chosen
since
appropriate
course
district
hold
evidentiary
hearing
see
townsend
sain
evidentiary
hearing
must
held
unless
trier
fact
full
hearing
reliably
found
relevant
facts
determination
merits
factual
issue
state
shall
presumed
correct
unless
appears
material
facts
adequately
developed
state
hearing
clearly
irrelevant
admissions
part
selecting
judge
never
given
thought
appointing
indeed
never
appointed
black
foreman
came
part
petitioner
written
response
respondents
petitions
writs
federal
habeas
corpus
ascertaining
whether
plaintiff
carried
burden
proof
evidence
must
considered
unusual
affidavit
evidence
submitted
one
party
lawsuit
turns
primary
perhaps
even
determinative
aid
party
justice
stevens
dissenting
part
justice
stewart
opinion
prompts
explain
joining
part
ii
opinion
necessarily
indicate
rejected
arguments
set
forth
justice
jackson
dissenting
opinion
cassell
texas
member
issue
first
addressed
surely
enough
force
justice
blackmun
reasoning
require
adherence
course
decision
consistently
followed
since
doctrine
stare
decisis
straitjacket
forecloses
outmoded
rules
doctrine
however
provide
busy
judges
valid
reason
refusing
remeasure
delicate
balance
tipped
direction
every
time
conflicting
interests
weighed
stare
decisis
considerations
weigh
heavily
decision
join
part
ii
opinion
also
support
justice
white
opinion
dissenting
parts
iii
iv
accordingly
join
dissent