Where a negro moves to quash an indictment on the ground that he
is denied the equal protection of the laws and his civil rights
under the Constitution and the laws of the United States by the
exclusion of negroes from the grand jury, but the record does not
show that he proved or offered to prove the truth of the
allegations on which the motion was based, this Court cannot
interfere with the judgment.
Page 189 U. S. 427
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case comes here by writ of error to the Supreme Court of
South Carolina. The plaintiff in error has been convicted of
murder, and the error alleged is that the grand jury was composed
wholly of white persons, and that all negroes, although
constituting four-fifths of the population and of the registered
voters of the county, were excluded on account of their race and
color. The plaintiff in error is a negro, and he says that in this
way he has been denied the equal protection of the laws and of the
civil rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
Carter v. Texas, 177 U.
S. 442. The case was taken to the supreme court of the
state by appeal, and the judgment of the trial court was
affirmed.
We have stated the error which is alleged. The trouble with the
case is that we are not warranted in assuming that the allegations
are true. The record contains an agreed statement called a brief,
in which it appears that the defendant made a motion to quash on
the grounds stated, and in which it is said that the defendant
offered to introduce testimony to support these grounds. But this
agreed statement is "signed with relation to case as settled by
judge." It appears that the parties agreed that the judge before
whom the case was tried should
"make a statement as to his rulings upon the motion to quash the
indictment, and also as to the motion to challenge the arrays of
grand and petit jurors in the case, and also as to requests to
charge, and such statement shall be the agreed statement for the
purposes of this appeal."
The challenge of the array referred to was upon the same grounds
as the agreed statement for the purposes
Page 189 U. S. 428
of this agreement the judge made a statement of the grounds on
which he overruled the motion.
"Because the statement of facts set out in the grounds for
quashing the same did not appear from the records or otherwise. . .
. In the absence of any showing to the contrary, I was bound to
assume that the jury commissioners had done their duty."
The foregoing language is quite inconsistent with there having
been an offer to prove the allegations of the motion, as is the
further fact that the record discloses no exception to the supposed
refusal to hear evidence offered to that end. If these
considerations were not enough, we have, in addition, the absence
of any suggestion of a refusal to admit evidence in the reasons for
appeal to the supreme court, and the statement of the supreme court
that it was not contended at the hearing of the appeal that there
was any offer to introduce testimony on the point "other than the
offer therein made." The last words refer, we assume, to the
concluding words of the motion: "All of which the defendant is
ready to verify." Upon the whole record we are compelled to infer
that the statement that the defendant offered to introduce evidence
was inserted in the so-called brief by his counsel, but was not
agreed to except so far as it might be confirmed by the statement
of the judge, and that he did not confirm it. We see no ground for
the suggestion that this fact was outside the matters submitted to
the judge, and therefore must be taken to have been admitted.
Evidently, that was not the understanding on the part of the state.
It is suggested that the allegations of the motion to quash, not
having been controverted and having been supported by the affidavit
of the defendant, must be taken to be true. But a motion, although
reduced to writing, is not a pleading, and does not require a
written answer. It appears from the grounds on which the judge
decided it, apart from anything else, that the allegations were
controverted, and under such circumstances it was necessary for the
defendant to make an attempt to introduce evidence. The formal
words of the motion were not enough.
Smith v. Mississippi,
162 U. S. 592,
162 U. S.
601.
A provisional objection is made to the Constitution of South
Page 189 U. S. 429
Carolina in case it should be held to exclude negroes from the
jury. But the ground of the motion was not that negroes were
excluded by an invalid constitutional provision, but that they were
excluded in the administration of the law, although they were
qualified under it to serve. The case involves questions of the
gravest character, but we must deal with it according to the
record, and the record discloses no wrong.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA took no part in the consideration and
disposition of this case.