Coleman v. Alabama
Cases that cite this one
45 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dan Witcher v. C. C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary (4th Cir. 1969)
- James Barber v. James Ponte (1st Cir. 1985)
- Colvin v. State (Md. 1984)
- Andrew Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, Mississippi (5th Cir. 1972)
- State v. Curry (La. 1972)
- State v. Plenty Horse (S.D. 1971)
- State v. Warters (Mo. 1970)
- State v. Poland (La. 1970)
- State v. Taggert (Mo. 1969)
- Bokulich v. Jury Commission of Greene County, Alabama (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1968)
- Hale v. Henderson (District Court, W.D. Tennessee 1972)
- United States v. Vincent Moran Doss (6th Cir. 1977)
- Towns v. Beame (District Court, S.D. New York 1974)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1974)
- State v. Cobbs (Conn. 1973)
- State v. Leichman (La. 1973)
- State v. Jack (La. 1973)
- Richard L. Carmical v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, California State Prison at Folsom (9th Cir. 1972)
- Hale v. Henderson (District Court, W.D. Tennessee 1972)
- Chance v. Board of Examiners (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
- Carmical v. Craven (9th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Benjamin J. Butera (1st Cir. 1970)
- State v. Elie (La. 1970)
- Hairston v. Cox (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1970)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
On our previous remand, we held that petitioner was entitled to “his day in court on his allegations of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries sitting in his case.” 377 U. S. 129, 133. Petitioner was thereupon afforded an evidentiary hearing on his allegations. Although the evidence was in dispute regarding the inclusion of Negroes in the grand and petit jury venires in the county in which petitioner was indicted and tried, it appeared that no Negro served on *23 the grand jury which indicted or the petit jury which convicted petitioner. It further appeared that up to the time of petitioner’s trial, no Negro had ever served on a grand jury panel and few, if any, Negroes had served on petit jury panels. This “testimony in itself made out a prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection which the Constitution guarantees.” Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 591. In the absence of evidence adduced by the State adequate to rebut the prima facie case, petitioner was therefore entitled to have his conviction reversed. Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773; Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584; Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 87-88; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475, 481; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406; Norris v. Alabama, supra.
On our independent examination of the record, we are unable to discover any evidence adduced by the State adequate to rebut petitioner’s prima facie case. The Alabama Supreme Court, in affirming the trial court’s denial of relief, acknowledged that the evidence indicated “a disparity” and stated only that “that disparity can be explained by a number of other factors.” 280 Ala. 509, 512, 195 So. 2d 800, 802. The only factors mentioned, however, were that Negroes had moved away from the county and that some may have been under the statutory disqualification of having suffered a felony conviction. In the circumstances of this case these factors were not in our view sufficient to rebut petitioner’s prima facie case.
The judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.