Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cty.

1970-01-19

Headline: Racial exclusion in jury selection blocked: Court upholds order stopping systematic exclusion of Black residents from Greene County juries but keeps Alabama’s law intact and declines to force appointments.

Holding: The Court affirms an injunction forcing Greene County jury officials to stop systematically excluding Black residents and to compile a proper jury list, but it upholds Alabama’s broad jury-selection statute and refuses to order Black appointments.

Real World Impact:

Stops Greene County officials from systematically excluding Black residents from jury rolls.
Requires the county to compile a proper jury list that includes eligible Black citizens.
Leaves Alabama’s jury-selection statute intact and does not force governor appointments.

Topics: jury selection, racial discrimination, civil rights, state appointments

Summary

Background

A group of Black residents of Greene County, Alabama sued county jury officials, the local judge, and the Governor after they say qualified Black citizens were never summoned for jury service. The District Court found the county’s clerk and jury commissioners used informal, mostly white contacts to build the jury roll, producing a list that badly underrepresented Black people despite their majority in the county.

Reasoning

The main question was whether Alabama’s statute letting commissioners pick jurors by qualities like "good character" was itself invalid and whether the Governor had to appoint Black commissioners. The Court agreed there was unconstitutional, racially discriminatory exclusion in practice and affirmed the injunction that the county stop the exclusion and compile a proper jury list. But the Court would not strike down the statute on its face and declined to order the Governor to appoint Black members to the jury commission.

Real world impact

The decision means Greene County must change how it compiles juror lists and include eligible Black citizens. It does not rewrite Alabama’s jury-selection law statewide, and the statutory standards remain in place. The ruling is an injunction remedying local practice; the District Court can later modify relief if the county fails to comply.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice warned the Court lacks power to force a Governor’s appointments. Another Justice argued more forcefully that a racially balanced commission or proportional representation may be the only effective cure for entrenched exclusion.