Avery v. Georgia

1953-07-14

Headline: Court reverses death sentence and blocks racially segregated jury-selection practice that excluded Black people, requiring the State to justify or stop race-differentiating procedures.

Holding: The Court held that the use of differently colored jury tickets that resulted in an all-white panel established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, shifting the burden to the State to rebut and reversing the conviction.

Real World Impact:

Reverses convictions when jury panels show racial exclusion and the State can't rebut.
Bars jury-selection methods that separate names by race, like colored slips.
Shifts burden to governments to prove jury lists are non-discriminatory.

Topics: racial discrimination in jury selection, jury selection rules, criminal conviction reversal, race and juries

Summary

Background

A Black man was indicted in one county, moved for trial to Fulton County, and was tried there for rape. He was convicted and sentenced to death. He challenged the jury list, saying members of his race had been excluded. A hearing was held, the trial court overruled the challenge, and the facts about how jurors were chosen were undisputed.

Reasoning

The Court examined how the county picked jurors. County officials printed names from tax records and put white names on white slips and Black names on yellow slips into a jury box. A judge drew slips and a clerk made the final panel. From about sixty people picked for the panel, none were Black even though Black residents were available and sometimes served on juries. The Court found that using differently colored slips made discrimination easier and that the absence of any Black person created a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Once that showing was made, the State had the burden to prove there was no discrimination. The State did not meet that burden, so the Court reversed the conviction.

Real world impact

The decision forbids jury-selection mechanisms that separate names by race and requires states to explain or stop such practices. It means courts must take evidence of racial exclusion seriously and can overturn convictions when jury panels are shown to be racially tainted.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices joined the result and added facts: one Justice gave county population and jury-list statistics showing stark underrepresentation of Black residents; another emphasized the practical opportunities to discriminate when colored slips are visible.