castaneda
partida
argued
november
decided
march
texas
key
man
system
selecting
grand
juries
jury
commissioners
appointed
state
district
judge
select
prospective
jurors
different
portions
county
district
judge
proceeds
test
qualifications
grand
juror
addition
citizen
state
county
serve
qualified
voter
county
must
sound
mind
good
moral
character
literate
prior
felony
conviction
pending
indictment
accusation
respondent
convicted
crime
texas
district
exhausted
state
remedies
claim
discrimination
selection
grand
jury
indicted
filed
habeas
corpus
petition
federal
district
alleging
denial
due
process
equal
protection
fourteenth
amendment
gross
underrepresentation
county
grand
juries
basis
evidence
district
concluded
respondent
made
weak
prima
facie
case
invidious
discrimination
balance
doubts
reliability
population
grand
jury
statistics
offered
respondent
census
county
records
coupled
opinion
constituted
governing
majority
county
caused
conclude
prima
facie
case
rebutted
state
petition
dismissed
appeals
reversed
holding
state
failed
rebut
respondent
prima
facie
case
held
based
facts
bear
grand
jury
discrimination
issue
statistical
disparities
county
population
period
summoned
grand
jury
service
method
jury
selection
relevant
testimony
manner
selection
process
implemented
proof
offered
respondent
sufficient
demonstrate
prima
facie
case
intentional
discrimination
grand
jury
selection
state
failed
rebut
presumption
competent
evidence
pp
none
evidence
record
rebutted
respondent
prima
facie
case
state
offered
testimony
state
district
judge
selected
jury
commissioners
dealing
principally
selection
commissioners
instructions
given
call
commissioners
testify
without
evidence
method
commissioners
determined
qualifications
grand
jurors
prior
statutory
time
testing
qualifications
inference
explaining
disparity
reference
literacy
sound
mind
moral
character
criminal
record
qualifications
drawn
statistics
population
whole
pp
district
governing
majority
theory
dispel
presumption
intentional
discrimination
many
facets
human
motivation
unwise
presume
matter
law
human
beings
one
definable
group
discriminate
members
group
furthermore
relevance
governing
majority
elected
officials
grand
jury
selection
process
questionable
even
governing
majority
theory
general
applicability
cases
kind
record
case
inadequate
permit
approach
pp
blackmun
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
stevens
joined
marshall
filed
concurring
opinion
post
burger
filed
dissenting
opinion
powell
rehnquist
joined
post
stewart
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
rehnquist
joined
post
thomas
parker
beery
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioner
david
hall
argued
cause
respondent
brief
melvin
wulf
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
sole
issue
presented
case
whether
state
texas
person
petitioner
sheriff
hidalgo
county
successfully
rebutted
respondent
prisoner
prima
facie
showing
discrimination
state
grand
jury
selection
process
brief
petitioner
claiming
effective
rebuttal
asserts
list
grand
jurors
indicted
respondent
indicates
percent
names
appearing
thereon
spanish
record
indicates
jury
commissioners
grand
jurors
returned
indictment
petit
jurors
judge
presiding
trial
sheriff
served
notice
grand
jurors
appear
spanish
surnames
brief
petitioner
prior
occasions
considered
workings
texas
system
grand
jury
selection
see
hernandez
texas
cassell
texas
akins
texas
hill
texas
smith
texas
texas
employs
key
man
system
relies
jury
commissioners
select
prospective
grand
jurors
community
large
procedure
begins
state
district
judge
appointment
three
five
persons
serve
jury
commissioners
tex
code
crim
art
commissioners
shall
select
less
persons
citizens
different
portions
county
compose
list
actual
grand
jury
drawn
art
supp
least
persons
list
appear
pursuant
summons
district
judge
proceeds
test
qualifications
art
qualifications
set
art
grand
juror
must
citizen
texas
county
qualified
voter
county
sound
mind
good
moral
character
literate
prior
felony
conviction
pending
indictment
legal
accusation
theft
felony
interrogation
oath
method
specified
testing
prospective
juror
qualifications
art
precise
questions
asked
set
art
part
tracks
language
art
finds
jurors
meet
statutory
qualifications
impaneled
grand
jury
art
ii
respondent
rodrigo
partida
indicted
march
grand
jury
district
hidalgo
county
crime
burglary
private
residence
night
intent
rape
hidalgo
one
border
counties
southern
texas
trial
petit
jury
respondent
convicted
sentenced
eight
years
custody
texas
department
corrections
first
raised
claim
discrimination
grand
jury
selection
process
motion
new
trial
state
district
support
motion
respondent
testified
general
existence
discrimination
area
texas
introduced
statistics
census
hidalgo
county
grand
jury
records
census
figures
show
population
hidalgo
county
bureau
census
census
population
characteristics
population
vol
pt
table
persons
spanish
language
spanish
surname
totaled
table
assumption
persons
spanish
language
spanish
surname
figures
show
county
population
respondent
data
compiled
hidalgo
county
grand
jury
records
showed
period
average
percentage
grand
jurors
period
district
judge
impaneled
jury
indicted
respondent
charge
average
percentage
list
grand
jury
indicted
respondent
selected
spanish
surnamed
last
set
data
respondent
introduced
census
illustrated
number
ways
tend
underprivileged
including
incomes
less
desirable
jobs
substandard
housing
lower
levels
education
state
offered
evidence
either
attacking
respondent
allegations
discrimination
demonstrating
statistics
unreliable
way
state
district
nevertheless
denied
motion
new
trial
appeal
texas
criminal
appeals
affirmed
conviction
partida
state
reaching
merits
claim
grand
jury
discrimination
held
respondent
failed
make
prima
facie
case
view
shown
many
females
served
grand
juries
married
men
surnames
many
excused
reasons
age
health
legal
reasons
many
listed
census
met
statutory
qualifications
citizenship
literacy
sound
mind
moral
character
lack
criminal
record
accusation
quite
beyond
uncertainties
statistics
found
impossible
believe
discrimination
directed
light
many
elective
positions
held
county
substantial
representation
recent
grand
juries
essence
refused
presume
discriminate
kind
exhausting
state
remedies
respondent
filed
petition
habeas
corpus
federal
district
alleging
denial
due
process
equal
protection
guaranteed
fourteenth
amendment
gross
underrepresentation
hidalgo
county
grand
juries
hearing
state
transcript
introduced
petitioner
presented
testimony
state
judge
selected
jury
commissioners
compiled
list
respondent
grand
jury
taken
judge
first
reviewed
state
grand
jury
selection
process
selecting
jury
commissioners
judge
stated
tried
appoint
greater
number
members
ethnic
groups
testified
instructed
commissioners
qualifications
grand
juror
exemptions
provided
law
record
silent
however
regard
instructions
dealing
potential
problem
discrimination
directed
identifiable
group
judge
admitted
actual
results
selection
process
produced
grand
jury
lists
representative
ethnic
balance
community
app
jury
commissioners
ones
position
explain
apparent
substantial
underrepresentation
provide
information
actual
operation
selection
process
never
called
basis
evidence
concluded
respondent
made
bare
prima
facie
case
invidious
discrimination
proof
long
continued
disproportion
composition
grand
juries
hidalgo
county
supp
sd
tex
emphasis
original
based
examination
reliability
statistics
offered
respondent
however
despite
lack
evidence
record
justifying
inquiry
stated
prima
facie
case
weak
believed
census
statistics
reflect
true
situation
accurately
recent
changes
hidalgo
county
area
impression
demographic
characteristics
community
hand
recognized
texas
system
grand
jury
selection
highly
subjective
archaic
inefficient
factor
arguing
less
tolerance
percentage
differences
balance
doubts
reliability
statistics
coupled
opinion
constituted
governing
majority
county
caused
conclude
prima
facie
case
rebutted
governing
majority
theory
distinguished
respondent
case
preceding
cases
involving
similar
disparities
basis
findings
dismissed
petition
appeals
fifth
circuit
reversed
agreed
district
respondent
succeeded
making
prima
facie
case
found
however
state
failed
rebut
showing
governing
majority
theory
contributed
little
state
case
absence
specific
proof
explain
disparity
light
state
abdication
responsibility
introduce
controverting
evidence
held
respondent
entitled
prevail
granted
certiorari
consider
whether
existence
governing
majority
rebut
prima
facie
case
discrimination
grand
jury
selection
whether
state
otherwise
met
burden
proof
iii
long
recognized
denial
equal
protection
laws
try
defendant
particular
race
color
indictment
issued
grand
jury
persons
race
color
solely
race
color
excluded
state
hernandez
texas
see
alexander
louisiana
carter
jury
see
also
peters
kiff
plurality
opinion
dissenting
opinion
earlier
cases
involved
absolute
exclusion
identifiable
group
later
cases
established
principle
substantial
underrepresentation
group
constitutes
constitutional
violation
well
results
purposeful
discrimination
see
turner
fouche
carter
jury
supra
whitus
georgia
swain
alabama
cassell
texas
recent
cases
established
fact
official
act
unconstitutional
solely
racially
disproportionate
impact
washington
davis
see
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
nevertheless
recognized
arlington
heights
ometimes
clear
pattern
unexplainable
grounds
race
emerges
effect
state
action
even
governing
legislation
appears
neutral
face
washington
davis
application
principles
jury
cases
considered
also
clear
cases
dealing
racial
discrimination
selection
juries
systematic
exclusion
negroes
unequal
application
law
show
intentional
discrimination
prima
facie
case
discriminatory
purpose
may
proved
well
absence
negroes
particular
jury
combined
failure
jury
commissioners
informed
eligible
negro
jurors
community
racially
selection
procedures
prima
facie
case
made
burden
proof
shifts
state
rebut
presumption
unconstitutional
action
showing
permissible
racially
neutral
selection
criteria
procedures
produced
monochromatic
result
alexander
louisiana
thus
order
show
equal
protection
violation
occurred
context
grand
jury
selection
defendant
must
show
procedure
employed
resulted
substantial
underrepresentation
race
identifiable
group
belongs
first
step
establish
group
one
recognizable
distinct
class
singled
different
treatment
laws
written
applied
hernandez
texas
next
degree
underrepresentation
must
proved
comparing
proportion
group
total
population
proportion
called
serve
grand
jurors
significant
period
time
see
norris
alabama
method
proof
sometimes
called
rule
exclusion
held
available
method
proving
discrimination
jury
selection
delineated
class
hernandez
texas
finally
noted
selection
procedure
susceptible
abuse
racially
neutral
supports
presumption
discrimination
raised
statistical
showing
washington
davis
alexander
louisiana
defendant
shown
substantial
underrepresentation
group
made
prima
facie
case
discriminatory
purpose
burden
shifts
state
rebut
case
case
longer
open
dispute
clearly
identifiable
class
see
hernandez
texas
supra
cf
white
regester
statistics
introduced
respondent
census
illustrate
disadvantages
group
subject
additionally
alexander
louisiana
selection
procedure
racially
neutral
respect
spanish
surnames
easily
identifiable
race
questionnaires
alexander
notations
card
colors
whitus
georgia
supra
avery
georgia
disparity
proved
census
statistics
showed
population
county
period
persons
summoned
grand
jury
service
difference
greater
found
significant
turner
fouche
negroes
general
population
grand
jury
lists
since
state
presented
evidence
showing
period
reliable
take
relevant
base
comparison
mathematical
disparities
accepted
adequate
prima
facie
case
within
range
presented
example
whitus
georgia
number
negroes
listed
tax
digest
amounted
taxpayers
grand
jury
venire
disparity
held
sufficient
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
see
sims
georgia
tax
lists
grand
jury
lists
jones
georgia
tax
lists
jury
list
agree
district
appeals
proof
case
enough
establish
prima
facie
case
discrimination
hidalgo
county
grand
jury
selection
supporting
conclusion
fact
texas
system
selecting
grand
jurors
highly
subjective
facial
constitutionality
system
course
accepted
see
carter
jury
akins
texas
smith
texas
nevertheless
noted
system
susceptible
abuse
applied
see
hernandez
texas
additionally
noted
persons
spanish
surnames
readily
identifiable
showing
made
respondent
therefore
shifted
burden
proof
state
dispel
inference
intentional
discrimination
inexplicably
state
introduced
practically
evidence
testimony
state
district
judge
dealt
principally
selection
jury
commissioners
instructions
given
commissioners
called
testify
case
swain
alabama
illustrates
potential
usefulness
testimony
sets
detail
procedures
followed
commissioners
opinion
texas
criminal
appeals
particularly
revealing
lack
rebuttal
evidence
record
many
listed
census
figures
names
citizens
state
south
side
rio
grande
many
migrant
workers
residents
hidalgo
county
many
illiterate
read
write
many
sound
mind
good
moral
character
many
convicted
felony
indictment
legal
accusation
theft
felony
none
facts
appear
record
emphasis
added
light
holding
respondent
proved
prima
facie
case
discrimination
rebutted
evidence
presently
record
consider
whether
district
governing
majority
theory
filled
evidentiary
gap
view
dispel
presumption
purposeful
discrimination
circumstances
case
many
facets
human
motivation
unwise
presume
matter
law
human
beings
one
definable
group
discriminate
members
group
indeed
even
dissent
justice
powell
suggest
presumption
appropriate
see
post
problem
complex
one
widely
differing
views
held
somewhat
precipitate
take
judicial
notice
one
view
another
basis
record
barren
furthermore
relevance
governing
majority
elected
officials
grand
jury
selection
process
questionable
fact
certain
elected
officials
demonstrates
nothing
motivations
methods
grand
jury
commissioners
select
persons
grand
jury
lists
arguably
relevant
fact
record
issue
three
five
jury
commissioners
respondent
case
knowing
forced
rely
reasoning
rejected
human
beings
discriminate
kind
order
find
presumption
purposeful
discrimination
rebutted
without
benefit
simple
behavioral
presumption
discriminatory
intent
rebutted
evidence
record
way
commissioners
operated
reasons
state
burden
supply
evidence
respondent
established
prima
facie
case
state
failure
regard
leaves
unchallenged
respondent
proof
purposeful
discrimination
finally
even
governing
majority
theory
general
applicability
cases
kind
inadequacy
record
case
permit
approach
among
evidentiary
deficiencies
lack
indication
long
enjoyed
governing
majority
status
absence
information
relative
power
inherent
elective
offices
held
uncertain
relevance
general
political
power
specific
issue
case
even
recent
time
period
presumably
political
power
greatest
discrepancy
number
total
population
number
grand
jury
lists
substantial
thus
facts
presented
case
governing
majority
theory
developed
fully
enough
satisfy
state
burden
rebuttal
iv
rather
relying
approach
jury
discrimination
question
faintly
defined
governing
majority
theory
record
prefer
look
facts
bear
issue
statistical
disparities
method
selection
relevant
testimony
manner
selection
process
implemented
standard
proof
offered
respondent
sufficient
demonstrate
prima
facie
case
discrimination
grand
jury
selection
since
state
failed
rebut
presumption
purposeful
discrimination
competent
testimony
despite
two
opportunities
affirm
appeals
holding
denial
equal
protection
law
grand
jury
selection
process
respondent
case
ordered
footnotes
principal
state
mode
juror
selection
random
method
similar
used
federal
system
see
see
generally
sperlich
jaspovice
grand
juries
grand
jurors
constitution
hastings
const
time
period
covered
case
statute
amended
omit
requirement
commissioners
freeholders
county
tex
laws
change
bearing
issues
us
prior
law
directed
commissioners
select
sixteen
men
legislature
amended
statute
year
substitute
words
twenty
persons
sixteen
men
tex
laws
law
amended
provide
present
range
persons
tex
laws
changes
number
persons
required
list
account
jump
grand
jury
list
statistics
set
forth
infra
state
courts
federal
courts
habeas
state
argued
respondent
challenge
timely
raised
matter
state
procedure
therefore
waived
complaint
kind
might
since
texas
courts
considered
claim
merits
however
free
see
coleman
alabama
cf
francis
henderson
furthermore
petitioner
abandoned
waiver
point
petition
certiorari
purposes
terms
used
synonyms
census
designation
persons
spanish
language
spanish
surname
persons
spanish
language
include
whose
mother
tongue
spanish
persons
families
head
household
spouse
reported
spanish
mother
tongue
persons
spanish
surname
census
uses
term
determined
reference
list
spanish
surnames
compiled
immigration
naturalization
service
texas
social
economic
characteristics
presented
persons
spanish
language
combined
persons
spanish
surname
census
reports
bureau
census
census
population
characteristics
population
vol
pt
app
oral
argument
counsel
petitioner
appears
suggested
presence
illegal
aliens
spanish
surnames
might
inflate
percentage
county
population
tr
oral
arg
agree
presence
noncitizens
makes
practical
difference
table
census
breaks
people
composed
total
county
population
three
groups
native
native
parentage
native
foreign
parentage
foreign
born
persons
assumption
noncitizenship
logically
sustainable
foreign
born
even
probable
naturalized
citizens
furthermore
persons
foreign
born
category
persons
excluded
population
county
total
becomes
assuming
every
person
counted
person
assumption
favors
state
total
number
reduced
using
adjusted
figures
constitute
county
population
figure
thus
negligibly
smaller
one
used
throughout
litigation
consistency
shall
continue
refer
population
figures
entire
county
particularly
since
state
shown
figures
unreliable
statistics
grand
jury
composition
organized
follows
year
persons
av
spanish
percentage
grand
jury
list
surnamed
per
list
spanish
surnamed
persons
summoned
serve
grand
jurors
period
spanish
surnamed
see
table
showing
hidalgo
county
grand
jury
panels
app
oral
argument
counsel
petitioner
suggested
data
regarding
educational
background
explained
discrepancy
percentage
total
population
percentage
grand
jury
lists
tr
oral
arg
variety
reasons
accept
suggestion
first
texas
method
selecting
grand
jurors
qualifications
tested
persons
list
appear
district
prior
time
assuming
unbiased
selection
procedure
persons
educational
characteristics
appear
list
jury
commissioners
actually
exercised
means
winnowing
lacked
ability
read
write
incumbent
state
call
commissioners
explain
done
absence
evidence
record
effect
shall
assume
people
excluded
grand
jury
service
illiterate
second
difficult
draw
valid
inferences
raw
census
data
since
data
incomplete
places
definition
literacy
undoubtedly
subject
dispute
event
state
failure
discuss
literacy
problem
point
prior
oral
argument
compounds
difficulties
one
gap
data
occurs
respect
younger
persons
jury
pool
census
reports
educational
background
cover
years
age
yet
age
limitation
eligibility
grand
jury
service
qualification
vote
tex
code
crim
art
supp
period
census
figures
apply
person
became
qualified
vote
age
tex
elec
code
art
art
amended
give
franchise
persons
tex
laws
improbable
educational
characteristics
persons
younger
age
group
prove
favorable
finally
even
assuming
statistics
persons
age
sufficiently
representative
useful
significant
discrepancy
still
exists
number
people
level
representation
grand
jury
lists
table
census
shows
total
persons
age
group
schooling
data
standard
metropolitan
statistical
area
smsa
identical
hidalgo
county
table
shows
persons
group
schooling
means
persons
races
ethnic
groups
schooling
translated
percentages
persons
schooling
others
schooling
means
persons
schooling
others
schooling
persons
thus
represent
schooling
others
figure
still
creates
significant
disparity
compared
representation
grand
juries
shown
period
involved
suggestion
made
dissenting
opinion
chief
justice
post
reliance
eligible
population
figures
allowance
literacy
defeat
respondent
prima
facie
showing
discrimination
disparity
age
schooling
represented
grand
jury
venires
takes
chief
justice
concerns
account
statistical
analysis
described
detail
infra
indicates
discrepancy
significant
one
assumes
constitute
jury
pool
detailed
calculation
reveals
likelihood
substantial
discrepancy
occur
chance
less
prefer
rely
disparity
however
since
many
implicit
assumptions
analysis
consider
inappropriate
us
appellate
tribunal
undertake
kind
inquiry
without
record
assumptions
tested
rest
instead
fact
record
show
way
educational
characteristics
taken
account
compilation
grand
jury
lists
since
procedure
established
state
provides
literacy
tested
group
summoned
noted
foreman
grand
jury
indicted
respondent
summoned
serve
spanish
surnames
seven
members
petit
jury
convicted
addition
state
judge
presided
trial
number
elected
officials
county
federal
district
judge
observed
state
judge
testimony
selection
process
grand
jurors
hidalgo
county
typically
resulted
progressive
reduction
number
involved
stage
see
alexander
louisiana
example
said
jury
commissioners
jury
panel
might
actual
grand
jury
speculated
reason
might
cultural
app
suggested
actual
discrimination
operating
might
economic
jury
commissioners
higher
classes
tended
select
prospective
jurors
among
peers
consequently
number
disproportionately
low
since
concentrated
lower
end
economic
scale
find
unnecessary
decide
whether
showing
simple
economic
discrimination
enough
make
prima
facie
case
absence
evidence
since
case
us
cf
thiel
southern
pacific
cases
holding
unconstitutional
discriminatory
selection
procedures
grand
jury
context
include
alexander
louisiana
supra
arnold
north
carolina
eubanks
louisiana
reece
georgia
cassell
texas
hill
texas
smith
texas
pierre
louisiana
rogers
alabama
carter
texas
bush
kentucky
idea
behind
rule
exclusion
complex
disparity
sufficiently
large
unlikely
due
solely
chance
accident
absence
evidence
contrary
one
must
conclude
racial
factors
entered
selection
process
see
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
washington
davis
eubanks
louisiana
smith
texas
cf
infra
dissenters
argue
subjectivity
system
cuts
favor
state
control
selection
process
members
class
person
claiming
discrimination
fact
remains
however
class
respondent
belongs
substantially
underrepresented
grand
jury
lists
hidalgo
county
dissenters
argument
another
aspect
governing
majority
theory
see
part
infra
circumstances
presented
case
theory
dispel
presumption
purposeful
discrimination
created
combined
force
statistical
showing
highly
subjective
method
selection
since
census
compile
separate
statistics
persons
impossible
ascertain
whether
percentage
county
changed
appreciably
period
time
issue
therefore
forced
rely
assumption
figure
remained
constant
statistical
analysis
grand
jury
lists
tenure
state
district
judge
selected
commissioners
respondent
case
reveals
significant
disparity
existed
time
period
well
see
infra
thus
district
assumption
reference
shorter
time
period
show
prima
facie
case
discrimination
proved
unwarranted
jurors
drawn
randomly
general
population
number
sample
modeled
binomial
distribution
see
finkelstein
application
statistical
decision
theory
jury
discrimination
cases
harv
rev
see
generally
hoel
introduction
mathematical
statistics
ed
mosteller
rourke
thomas
probability
statistical
applications
ed
given
population
expected
number
among
persons
summoned
serve
grand
jurors
period
approximately
observed
number
course
given
drawing
fluctuation
expected
number
predicted
important
point
however
statistical
model
shows
results
random
drawing
likely
fall
vicinity
expected
value
see
mosteller
rourke
thomas
supra
measure
predicted
fluctuations
expected
value
standard
deviation
defined
binomial
distribution
square
root
product
total
number
sample
times
probability
selecting
times
probability
selecting
thus
case
standard
deviation
approximately
general
rule
large
samples
difference
expected
value
observed
number
greater
two
three
standard
deviation
hypothesis
jury
drawing
random
suspect
social
scientist
data
reflect
difference
expected
observed
number
approximately
standard
deviations
detailed
calculation
reveals
likelihood
substantial
departure
expected
value
occur
chance
less
data
period
state
district
judge
supervised
selection
process
similarly
support
inference
exclusion
occur
chance
persons
called
serve
grand
jurors
expected
representation
approximately
standard
deviation
calculated
binomial
model
approximately
six
discrepancy
expected
observed
values
standard
deviations
detailed
calculation
shows
likelihood
drawing
chance
negligible
less
said
random
selection
methods
similar
federal
system
probably
avoid
potential
abuse
found
system
see
sperlich
jaspovice
supra
say
course
simple
protestation
commissioner
racial
considerations
played
part
selection
enough
kind
testimony
found
insufficient
several
occasions
alexander
louisiana
hernandez
texas
norris
alabama
neither
state
entitled
rely
presumption
officials
discharged
sworn
duties
rebut
case
discrimination
jones
georgia
case
majority
practicing
benevolent
discrimination
favor
traditionally
disfavored
minority
although
situation
illustrates
motivations
immediately
obvious
might
enter
discrimination
one
kind
justice
marshall
concurring
join
fully
justice
blackmun
sensitive
opinion
feel
compelled
write
separately
however
express
profound
disagreement
views
expressed
justice
powell
dissent
brother
powell
observes
post
three
categories
evidence
case
bear
ultimate
question
whether
respondent
demonstrated
preponderance
evidence
state
deliberately
systematically
den
ied
members
respondent
class
right
participate
jurors
administration
justice
post
quoting
alexander
louisiana
first
statistical
evidence
evidence
reveals
least
years
grossly
underrepresented
grand
juries
hidalgo
county
justice
blackmun
demonstrates
ante
impossible
sizable
disparity
produced
chance
statistical
evidence
least
supports
inference
discriminated
choice
grand
jurors
second
testimony
concerning
grand
jury
selection
system
employed
case
testimony
indicates
commissioners
constructed
grand
jury
panels
ample
opportunity
discriminate
since
selection
system
entirely
discretionary
since
persons
readily
identified
indeed
years
recognized
potential
abuse
inherent
texas
grand
jury
selection
plan
see
smith
texas
hill
texas
cassell
texas
hernandez
texas
thus
testimony
concerning
selection
system
buttresses
inference
purposeful
discrimination
suggested
statistics
every
case
aware
evidence
showed
statistical
disparity
discretionary
selection
procedures
found
prima
facie
case
discrimination
established
required
state
explain
ostensibly
neutral
selection
procedures
produced
nonneutral
results
line
cases
begins
decision
almost
century
ago
neal
delaware
extends
recent
decision
alexander
louisiana
supra
yet
brother
powell
us
conclude
evidence
insufficient
establish
purposeful
discrimination
even
though
explanation
offered
marked
underrepresentation
hidalgo
county
grand
juries
sole
basis
justice
powell
conclusion
lies
third
category
evidence
presented
proof
political
dominance
control
majority
hidalgo
county
post
like
district
appears
assume
without
basis
record
indeed
members
minority
groups
inclination
assure
fairness
members
group
post
although
concedes
possibility
minority
group
members
violate
inclination
see
post
apparently
regards
possibility
theoretical
real
thus
reject
inference
purposeful
discrimination
absent
alternative
explanation
disparate
results
emphatically
disagree
first
place
justice
powell
assumptions
human
nature
plausible
may
sound
fly
face
great
deal
social
science
theory
research
social
scientists
agree
members
minority
groups
frequently
respond
discrimination
prejudice
attempting
disassociate
group
even
point
adopting
majority
negative
attitudes
towards
minority
behavior
occurs
particular
frequency
among
members
minority
groups
achieved
measure
economic
political
success
thereby
gained
acceptability
among
dominant
group
even
brother
powell
behavioral
assumptions
valid
still
agree
making
foundation
constitutional
ruling
seems
especially
reviewing
claims
intentional
discrimination
solemn
responsibility
avoid
basing
decisions
broad
generalizations
concerning
minority
groups
history
taught
us
anything
danger
relying
stereotypes
question
decision
treat
particular
grand
jury
commissioners
hidalgo
county
acted
reliable
way
answer
question
said
many
times
state
produce
testimony
concerning
manner
selection
process
operated
state
failed
respondent
established
prima
facie
case
discrimination
join
opinion
affirming
appeals
see
also
norris
alabama
hale
kentucky
pierre
louisiana
smith
texas
hill
texas
patton
mississippi
cassell
texas
hernandez
texas
eubanks
louisiana
arnold
north
carolina
whitus
georgia
jones
georgia
sims
georgia
turner
fouche
akins
texas
statistical
evidence
involved
two
grand
jury
panels
swain
alabama
statistical
disparity
small
methods
selection
explained
allport
nature
prejudice
rose
negro
morale
simpson
yinger
racial
cultural
minorities
ed
bettelheim
individual
mass
behavior
extreme
situations
abnormal
social
psych
cf
brown
board
education
noting
impact
sense
self
de
jure
segregation
schools
frazier
black
bourgeoisie
simpson
yinger
supra
kardiner
ovesey
mark
oppression
lewin
among
jews
contemporary
jewish
record
norris
alabama
supra
pierre
louisiana
supra
alexander
louisiana
chief
justice
burger
justice
powell
justice
rehnquist
join
dissenting
addition
views
expressed
justice
powell
dissent
identify
one
flaw
opinion
majority
characterizes
prima
facie
case
discrimination
simply
decisions
suggest
common
sense
demands
eligible
population
statistics
gross
population
figures
provide
relevant
starting
point
alexander
louisiana
example
opinion
justice
white
looked
proportion
blacks
eligible
population
emphasis
supplied
failure
produce
evidence
relating
eligible
population
hidalgo
county
undermines
respondent
claim
statistical
disparity
existed
first
instance
particularly
substantial
numbers
members
identifiable
class
actually
served
grand
jury
panels
burden
rightly
rests
upon
challenger
show
meaningful
statistical
disparity
presumption
constitutionality
attaching
state
procedures
even
greater
force
circumstances
presented
exactly
members
grand
jury
list
challenged
respondent
members
allegedly
excluded
class
previously
called
upon
deal
length
sort
statistics
required
persons
challenging
grand
jury
selection
system
reason
prior
cases
little
doubt
members
identifiable
minority
groups
excluded
large
numbers
alexander
louisiana
supra
challenger
venire
included
one
member
identifiable
class
grand
jury
indicted
none
turner
fouche
jones
georgia
sims
georgia
whitus
georgia
best
token
inclusion
negroes
grand
jury
lists
case
us
contrast
involves
neither
tokenism
absolute
exclusion
rather
state
used
selection
system
resulting
inclusion
large
numbers
citizens
grand
jury
lists
situation
particularly
incumbent
respondent
adduce
precise
statistics
demonstrating
significant
disparity
respondent
obligated
demonstrate
disproportionately
large
numbers
eligible
individuals
excluded
systematically
grand
jury
service
respondent
offered
evidence
whatever
respect
therefore
established
meaningful
case
discrimination
prima
facie
otherwise
contrast
respondent
approach
opinion
accepts
without
analysis
census
bureau
statistics
demonstrate
adults
hidalgo
county
respondent
implies
spanish
surnamed
outset
therefore
respondent
gross
population
figures
manifestly
overinclusive
beginning
respondent
offered
evidence
whatever
respect
basic
qualifications
grand
jury
service
statistics
relied
opinion
suggest
persons
age
hidalgo
county
schooling
ante
since
one
requirement
grand
jurors
texas
literacy
english
language
approximately
likely
disqualified
ground
alone
reliance
respondent
overbroad
statistics
sole
defect
previously
noted
members
respondent
grand
jury
list
bore
surnames
grand
jury
lists
time
respondent
indictment
march
predominantly
thus
respect
september
grand
jury
list
prospective
grand
jurors
january
term
since
respondent
indicted
appears
truly
representative
grand
jury
mechanical
use
hidalgo
county
practices
years
earlier
seems
entirely
indefensible
know
record
know
whether
respondent
gross
population
figures
served
basis
establishing
disparity
complained
case
applicability
period
prior
accordingly
know
figures
may
totally
inaccurate
prior
years
apparent
disparity
alleged
respondent
increased
improperly
therefore
disagree
assumption
respondent
established
prima
facie
case
implicit
approval
respondent
method
showing
allegedly
disproportionate
impact
hidalgo
county
selection
system
upon
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
obviously
rested
respondent
produce
patently
overinclusive
figures
thereby
seek
shift
burden
state
cf
ante
rather
prima
facie
case
established
challenger
shows
disparity
percentage
minority
persons
eligible
population
percentage
minority
individuals
grand
jury
indeed
judge
reynaldo
garza
case
referred
hidalgo
county
rapidly
changing
experiencing
rapid
growth
justice
stewart
dissenting
view
findings
district
case
said
clearly
erroneous
fed
rule
civ
proc
gypsum
given
findings
constitutional
violation
selection
grand
jury
indicted
respondent
upon
basis
reverse
judgment
appeals
add
substantial
agreement
dissenting
opinions
chief
justice
justice
powell
clearly
erroneous
standard
applies
review
facts
found
district
habeas
corpus
proceeding
wade
mayo
justice
powell
chief
justice
justice
rehnquist
join
dissenting
evidence
relevant
issue
discrimination
case
falls
three
categories
first
statistical
evidence
introduced
respondent
state
federal
proceedings
shows
majority
hidalgo
county
proportionately
represented
grand
jury
lists
second
testimony
state
trial
judge
outlining
texas
grand
jury
selection
system
operated
case
third
facts
judicially
noticed
district
respect
political
dominance
control
majority
hidalgo
county
today
considers
dispositive
lack
proportional
representation
grand
jury
lists
county
occurred
jurors
selected
population
wholly
random
one
may
agree
disproportion
occur
chance
without
agreeing
resulted
purposeful
invidious
discrimination
view
circumstances
unique
case
fully
support
district
finding
statistical
disparity
basis
today
decision
likely
stemmed
neutral
causes
intent
discriminate
holds
criminal
defendant
may
demonstrate
violation
equal
protection
clause
merely
showing
procedure
selecting
grand
jurors
resulted
substantial
underrepresentation
race
identifiable
group
belongs
ante
holding
blurs
traditional
constitutional
distinctions
grand
petit
juries
misapplies
equal
protection
analysis
mandated
recent
decisions
fifth
amendment
right
grand
jury
apply
state
prosecution
hurtado
california
state
defendant
complain
state
forgoes
institution
grand
jury
proceeds
instead
prosecutorial
information
many
prefer
see
gerstein
pugh
nevertheless
state
chooses
proceed
grand
jury
must
proceed
within
constraints
imposed
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
thus
line
cases
beginning
strauder
west
virginia
held
criminal
defendant
denied
equal
protection
law
result
purposeful
discrimination
members
race
excluded
jury
service
see
alexander
louisiana
carter
jury
cassell
texas
akins
texas
points
right
applicable
purposeful
discrimination
results
substantial
rather
total
exclusion
members
defendant
class
see
turner
fouche
state
defendant
right
grand
jury
reflects
fair
community
right
representative
grand
jury
federal
right
derives
requirement
equal
protection
fifth
amendment
explicit
requirement
grand
jury
right
similar
right
applicable
state
proceedings
representative
petit
jury
sixth
amendment
see
taylor
louisiana
extent
fifth
sixth
amendments
applicable
defendant
need
show
jury
selection
procedure
systematically
exclude
distinctive
groups
community
thereby
fail
reasonably
representative
thereof
state
case
challenge
grand
jury
fourteenth
amendment
applies
defendant
burden
proving
violation
equal
protection
clause
proof
discriminatory
intent
case
explicitly
mandated
recent
decisions
washington
davis
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
arlington
heights
said
decision
last
term
washington
davis
made
clear
official
action
held
unconstitutional
solely
results
racially
disproportionate
impact
disproportionate
impact
irrelevant
sole
touchstone
invidious
racial
discrimination
proof
racially
discriminatory
intent
purpose
required
show
violation
equal
protection
clause
determining
whether
invidious
discriminatory
purpose
motivating
factor
demands
sensitive
inquiry
circumstantial
direct
evidence
intent
may
available
impact
official
action
whether
bears
heavily
one
race
washington
davis
supra
may
provide
important
starting
point
sometimes
clear
pattern
unexplainable
grounds
race
emerges
effect
state
action
even
governing
legislation
appears
neutral
face
yick
wo
hopkins
guinn
lane
wilson
gomillion
lightfoot
evidentiary
inquiry
relatively
easy
cases
rare
absent
pattern
stark
gomillion
yick
wo
impact
alone
determinative
must
look
evidence
footnotes
omitted
never
announced
mathematical
standards
demonstration
systematic
exclusion
blacks
rather
emphasized
factual
inquiry
necessary
case
takes
account
possible
explanatory
factors
progressive
decimation
potential
negro
grand
jurors
indeed
striking
rest
conclusion
petitioner
demonstrated
prima
facie
case
invidious
racial
discrimination
statistical
improbability
alone
selection
procedures
racially
neutral
considered
together
davis
arlington
heights
alexander
make
clear
statistical
evidence
showing
underrepresentation
population
group
grand
jury
lists
considered
light
circumstantial
direct
evidence
intent
may
available
arlington
heights
case
following
critical
facts
beyond
dispute
judge
appointed
jury
commissioners
later
presided
respondent
trial
three
five
jury
commissioners
members
grand
jury
array
grand
jurors
returned
indictment
including
foreman
petit
jurors
returned
verdict
guilt
year
respondent
indicted
persons
grand
jury
list
addition
majority
elected
officials
hidalgo
county
majority
judges
positions
power
influence
held
surprising
community
population
emphasized
district
judge
garza
able
jurist
presided
habeas
proceedings
district
case
unique
every
jury
discrimination
case
reaching
involved
situation
governing
majority
resulting
power
jury
selection
process
held
white
electorate
white
officials
significant
fact
case
ignored
opinion
majority
jury
commissioners
jury
commission
body
vested
texas
law
authority
select
grand
jurors
texas
selection
system
noted
ante
jury
commission
opportunity
identify
advance
potential
jurors
spanish
surnames
circumstances
control
selection
jurors
political
process
rational
inferences
basic
facts
democratic
society
render
improbable
respondent
claim
intent
discriminate
judge
garza
observed
people
charge
choose
want
unlikely
discriminate
supp
individuals
likely
discriminate
favor
share
identifiable
attributes
premise
underlies
cases
recognizing
criminal
defendant
personal
right
fourteenth
amendment
members
class
excluded
jury
service
discriminatory
exclusion
members
defendant
class
viewed
unfairly
excluding
persons
may
inclined
favor
defendant
see
strauder
west
virginia
perceived
likelihood
jurors
favor
defendants
class
reason
suppose
jury
selection
process
systematically
excluded
persons
certain
race
basis
legitimate
complaint
criminal
defendants
race
individuals
excluded
jury
service
personal
right
complain
akins
texas
apparently
negro
jury
commission
jury
panel
emphasized
high
threshold
proof
required
brand
officers
discriminatory
intent
allegation
discriminatory
practices
selecting
grand
jury
panel
challenges
essential
element
proper
judicial
procedure
requirement
fairness
part
judicial
arm
government
dealing
persons
charged
criminal
offenses
lightly
concluded
officers
courts
disregard
accepted
standard
justice
matters
little
case
whether
judicially
noticeable
facts
composition
grand
jury
commission
viewed
defeating
respondent
prima
facie
case
outset
rebutting
established
statistical
evidence
significance
prima
facie
case
limited
effect
shifting
burden
going
forward
state
state
produced
evidence
either
presenting
proof
calling
attention
facts
subject
judicial
notice
question
whether
evidence
record
sufficient
demonstrate
deliberate
systematic
discrimination
jury
selection
process
respondent
produced
statistics
showing
substantially
represented
grand
jury
lists
represented
numbers
proportionate
share
total
population
state
responded
presenting
testimony
judge
appointed
grand
jury
commissioners
facts
presence
majority
elective
positions
county
entered
record
judicial
notice
testimony
together
facts
noted
district
sufficed
satisfy
state
burden
production
even
assuming
respondent
evidence
sufficient
give
rise
burden
accordingly
close
evidence
question
district
whether
respondent
demonstrated
preponderance
evidence
state
deliberately
systematically
den
ied
members
respondent
class
right
participate
jurors
administration
justice
alexander
district
found
judge
jury
commissioners
intentionally
discriminated
least
finding
clearly
erroneous
labels
inexplicable
state
introduced
testimony
state
trial
judge
ante
perhaps
state
fairly
may
faulted
presenting
evidence
today
decision
one
may
doubt
whether
many
lawyers
familiar
cases
thought
respondent
statistics
circumstances
case
prevailing
hidalgo
county
even
arguably
sufficient
establish
deliberate
systematic
discrimination
sense
unreality
justices
washington
decide
solely
basis
inferences
statistics
control
levers
power
remote
border
county
manipulating
discriminate
contrast
judges
scene
state
judge
appointed
jury
commissioners
presided
respondent
trial
district
judge
familiar
community
perceived
basis
respondent
claim
invidious
discrimination
seems
today
rejecting
district
finding
discrimination
took
place
erred
grievously
reinstate
judgment
district
strong
case
may
made
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
cognizable
federal
habeas
corpus
stone
powell
stone
held
state
provided
opportunity
full
fair
litigation
fourth
amendment
claim
state
prisoner
may
granted
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
ground
evidence
obtained
unconstitutional
search
seizure
introduced
trial
footnotes
omitted
unlike
prisoner
stone
complain
conviction
rested
evidence
tainted
fourth
amendment
violations
ask
new
trial
evidence
excluded
prisoner
case
challenges
moot
determination
grand
jury
sufficient
cause
proceed
trial
points
flaw
trial
stone
incremental
benefit
extending
habeas
corpus
means
correcting
unconstitutional
grand
jury
selection
procedures
might
viewed
outweighed
acknowledged
costs
values
vital
rational
system
criminal
justice
ibid
issue
addressed
briefed
argued
inappropriate
resolve
case
may
nondiscriminatory
methods
selection
time
result
representative
grand
jury
see
carter
jury
fourteenth
amendment
mandate
result
nothing
prevent
state
example
seeking
assure
informed
decisionmaking
requiring
grand
jurors
lawyers
familiar
criminal
law
requirement
result
substantial
underrepresentation
grand
juries
segments
community
areas
state
fourteenth
amendment
render
selection
process
unconstitutional
although
davis
arlington
heights
make
clear
proof
discriminatory
intent
required
proof
impact
effect
alone
sufficient
recognize
arlington
heights
lesser
burden
may
appropriate
context
jury
selection
nature
task
permitted
finding
constitutional
violation
even
statistical
pattern
approach
extremes
yick
wo
gomillion
one
illustration
cited
turner
fouche
turner
statistical
evidence
showed
negroes
constituted
general
population
included
grand
jury
list
found
disparity
figures
insubstantial
foreclose
corrective
action
federal
view
statistics
isolation
turner
criminal
case
involved
instead
georgia
peculiar
system
appointing
county
board
education
circuit
judge
appointed
jury
commissioners
turn
selected
grand
jury
grand
jury
turn
selected
board
education
every
layer
system
white
citizens
total
control
even
though
students
county
schools
negro
every
white
pupil
transferred
elsewhere
members
board
education
white
members
jury
commission
district
found
suit
instituted
negroes
systematically
excluded
grand
juries
token
inclusion
background
pervasive
discrimination
found
even
new
grand
jury
list
negro
representation
product
continued
purposeful
discrimination
contrast
carter
jury
supra
isolated
proof
years
negro
appointed
jury
commission
predominantly
negro
county
found
insufficient
standing
alone
establish
discriminatory
intent
reliance
opportunity
discrimination
noted
alexander
ante
clearly
misplaced
held
repeatedly
texas
system
selecting
grand
jurors
use
jury
commissioners
fair
face
capable
utilized
without
discrimination
hernandez
texas
accord
smith
texas
subjectivity
selection
system
cuts
favor
state
control
selection
process
members
class
person
claiming
discrimination
see
text
infra
apart
alexander
turner
see
supra
sustained
claims
grand
jury
discrimination
two
situations
cases
involve
total
exclusion
minorities
participation
grand
juries
reece
georgia
negro
jurors
years
hernandez
texas
supra
jurors
years
patton
mississippi
negro
jurors
years
hill
texas
negro
grand
jurors
years
pierre
louisiana
negro
grand
jurors
years
hale
kentucky
negro
jurors
norris
alabama
negro
jurors
long
number
years
rogers
alabama
negro
jurors
carter
texas
negro
jurors
bush
kentucky
negro
jurors
neal
delaware
negro
jurors
strauder
west
virginia
negro
jurors
remainder
cases
involve
severe
limitation
minority
participation
token
inclusion
sims
georgia
negroes
constituting
taxpayers
limited
grand
jury
list
jones
georgia
negroes
constituting
taxpayers
limited
jury
list
whitus
georgia
negroes
constituting
taxpayers
limited
grand
jury
venire
arnold
north
carolina
one
negro
juror
years
eubanks
louisiana
one
negro
juror
years
cassell
texas
limitation
one
negro
juror
panel
smith
texas
supra
five
negro
grand
jurors
period
district
noted
number
grand
jury
might
higher
inability
sheriff
locate
four
original
members
array
supp
texas
law
grand
jurors
must
concur
indictment
presented
tex
code
crim
art
suggest
course
mere
fact
constitute
majority
hidalgo
county
dispositive
many
communities
virtue
historical
reasons
majority
population
may
able
particular
time
control
significantly
influence
political
decisions
way
system
operates
see
turner
fouche
one
contend
seriously
hidalgo
county
community
classic
situation
minority
group
may
suffer
discrimination
community
relegated
position
political
powerlessness
san
antonio
school
dist
rodriguez
politically
powerless
majoritarian
political
element
community
demonstrated
capability
elect
protect
suggest
persons
positions
power
never
shown
discriminated
members
ethnic
racial
group
hold
respondent
statistical
evidence
without
insufficient
prove
claim
discrimination
case
agree
justice
marshall
ante
stereotypes
concerning
identifiable
classes
society
place
decisions
reason
consider
inappropriate
characterize
majority
hidalgo
county
minority
group
basis
suggest
may
adopt
ed
majority
negative
attitudes
towards
minority
ante
type
speculation
illustrates
lengths
one
must
go
buttress
holding
purposeful
discrimination
otherwise
based
solely
lack
proportional
representation
nothing
case
remotely
resembles
stark
discrimination
gomillion
lightfoot
yick
wo
hopkins
statistics
case
approach
degree
exclusion
characterized
cases
previously
found
grand
jury
discrimination
see
supra
case
year
respondent
indicted
persons
grand
jury
lists
ante
preoccupation
disparity
representation
total
population
grand
jury
lists
loses
sight
constitutional
standard
respondent
right
proportional
representation
carter
jury
right
require
state
deliberately
systematically
deny
right
participate
jurors
administration
justice
alexander