In an evidentiary hearing, following remand, it appeared that,
until petitioner's trial, no Negro had ever served on a grand jury
panel and few, if any, on petit jury panels in the county, and that
no Negroes served on the grand jury which indicted petitioner or
the petit jury which convicted him. The State presented no rebuttal
evidence, and the State Supreme Court's statement that the
acknowledged disparity "can be explained by a number of other
factors,"
viz., by Negroes moving out of the county, and
some disqualifications for felony convictions,
held not to
rebut petitioner's
prima facie case of denial of equal
protection of the laws.
Certiorari granted; 280 Ala. 509, 195 So. 2d 800, reversed and
remanded.
PER CURIAM.
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,
377 U. S. 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
Page 389 U. S. 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,
294 U. S. 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,
350 U. S. 87-88;
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475,
347 U. S. 481;
Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400,
316 U. S. 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.