Reece v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1955 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrand Jury DiscriminationRight to Counselgrand jurysystematic exclusionNegro jurors

Facts

Amos Reece, a Negro defendant, was arrested for rape and held in jail for three days before indictment; counsel was not appointed until the day after the indictment. Before arraignment, he moved to quash the indictment on the ground that Negroes had been systematically excluded from the grand jury, and he presented evidence that no Negro had served on a Cobb County grand jury for 18 years despite a substantial Negro population and that only six Negro names appeared on the grand-jury list, many apparently unlikely to serve. Georgia courts refused to consider the challenge on the merits because state practice required objections to grand-jury composition to be made before indictment. Reece again raised the issue before his second trial, alleging he had neither knowledge of the grand jury nor counsel before indictment, but the plea was rejected.

Issue

Does Georgia violate the Due Process Clause by applying a rule that requires a defendant to challenge the composition of the grand jury before indictment when the defendant, lacking counsel until after indictment, had no realistic opportunity to make that challenge? Also, was Reece's showing sufficient to present a prima facie constitutional claim of systematic racial exclusion?

Rule

Indictment by a grand jury from which members of the defendant's race have been systematically excluded denies equal protection. A defendant may assert that claim by motion to quash or plea in abatement before arraignment where he was not afforded an opportunity to challenge the grand-jury selection earlier; the right to object presupposes a genuine opportunity to exercise it, and in a capital case due process requires counsel at a time and under circumstances that permit effective assistance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Darnell Price was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama, on a capital murder charge and held in county jail for four days before indictment. The court did not appoint counsel until the morning after the indictment, and before arraignment Darnell moved to quash, alleging that Black residents had long been systematically excluded from the county grand jury.

If Alabama has a rule requiring objections to grand-jury composition before indictment, what is the strongest constitutional argument against applying that rule here?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a state may not bar a grand-jury discrimination claim through a pre-indictment objection rule when the defendant lacked a genuine opportunity to raise the challenge earlier. The majority emphasized that the right to object presupposes an opportunity to exercise it, and that in a capital case due process requires counsel at a time and under circumstances permitting effective assistance. Because Darnell had no counsel until after indictment and moved to quash before arraignment, due process is the strongest basis for requiring the court to hear the motion on the merits.