Rose v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusEqual ProtectionGrand Jury Discriminationfederal habeasgrand juryforeman selectionracial discrimination

Facts

Respondents, both Negroes, were indicted for first-degree murder in Tipton County, Tennessee, and before trial moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the grand jury array and foreman had been selected in a racially discriminatory manner. As the case reached the Supreme Court, only alleged discrimination in selection of the grand jury foreman was at issue. At the state hearing, respondents' proof on the foreman issue consisted essentially of testimony from two former foremen and the current foreman that they did not know of any Negro who had served as foreman. Tennessee's system allowed the trial judge to appoint the grand jury foreman for a two-year term, with reappointment permitted.

Issue

Whether a state prisoner may obtain federal habeas review and relief based on an Equal Protection claim of racial discrimination in selection of the grand jury foreman, notwithstanding harmless-error arguments and Stone v. Powell, and whether these respondents proved a prima facie case of such discrimination. More specifically, the Court considered whether the proof here satisfied the standards for establishing discrimination in grand jury foreman selection.

Rule

Claims of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury remain cognizable on federal habeas corpus and are not barred either as harmless error after conviction by a properly constituted petit jury or by extension of Stone v. Powell. To establish an Equal Protection violation in grand jury foreman selection, a defendant must make a prima facie showing under Castaneda v. Partida by proving: (1) the group is a recognizable, distinct class; (2) substantial underrepresentation by comparing the group's proportion in the total population with the proportion selected as foreman over a significant period of time; and (3) a selection procedure susceptible of abuse or not racially neutral; only then does the burden shift to the State to rebut the prima facie case.

🔒

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.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Leon Carter was convicted of armed robbery by an undisputedly fair petit jury after a constitutionally sound trial. In a federal habeas petition, he alleges that the state judge who appointed grand jury forepersons in Jefferson County systematically excluded Black residents from that post because of race.

How should the federal court treat Leon's habeas claim?

Explanation. The majority held that federal habeas corpus remains available for Equal Protection claims alleging racial discrimination in grand jury selection. The Court rejected both the argument that such discrimination becomes harmless after conviction by a properly constituted petit jury and the argument that Stone v. Powell should be extended to bar habeas review of these claims. The claim is therefore cognizable even without any challenge to the petit jury.