2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, April 15, 2002

    Capital Defense NewsletterApril 14, 2002

    The remedy for intentional discrimination in the selection and composition of grand juries, whether resulting in the complete exclusion of an identifiable group or substantial under-representation of that group, is to vacate the conviction and quash the indictment returned [*40] by the unconstitutionally constituted grand jury. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 262, 106 S. Ct. 617, 623, 88 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986); Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. at 551-52, 99 S. Ct. at 2997-98; Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 70 S. Ct. 629, 94 L. Ed. 839 (1950); Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1071 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 898, 112 S. Ct. 274, 116 L. Ed. 2d 226 (1991).

  2. Capital Defense Weekly, December 25 , 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterDecember 25, 2000

    Accordingly, where sufficient proof of discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment has been made out and not rebutted, the Supreme Court uniformly has required that the conviction be set aside and the indictment returned by the unconstitutionally constituted grand jury be quashed.See, e.g.,Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 406 (1942). InCastaneda, the Court noted that among the cases in which the Court had applied this principle in circumstances involving grand jury discrimination wereAlexander,supra;Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U.S. 773 (1964);Eubanks,supra;Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85 (1955);Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950);Hill,supra;Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940);Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939);Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U.S. 226 (1904);Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442 (1900); andBush v. Kentucky,supra. 430 U.S. at 492 n.12.