White v. Georgia
Headline: Court dismissed challenge to county jury selection, leaving Georgia conviction intact and not resolving claims that blacks, women, and young adults were excluded from jury pools.
Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial federal question, so the challenge to Coweta County’s jury selection was not reviewed and the conviction remained in place.
- Leaves conviction intact and the jury-selection complaint unresolved in this case.
- Declines to review county practices that reveal race, sex, and age information.
Summary
Background
A 24-year-old white man convicted in Coweta County, Georgia, challenged the jury lists used to indict and try him. He said the county’s jury commissioners compiled lists in a way that let them learn each person’s race, sex, and approximate age, and that the resulting venires underrepresented blacks, women, and people aged 18–30. Official statistics showed the county population included 28.3% eligible blacks, 53.3% eligible women, and 26.2% eligible young adults. But the 2,138-person petit jury list had only 10.85% blacks, 16.23% women, and 3.09% young adults; the 400-person grand jury list had 14.25% blacks, 4.5% women, and 1.25% young adults.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the selection procedures and the stark statistical gaps created a prima facie case of unconstitutional discrimination that would shift the burden to the State to show neutral, permissible reasons. The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial federal question, so it did not review the claim. Justice Brennan’s dissent argued the statistics and the procedure mirror prior cases and together establish a prima facie case that should have required the State to rebut the claim.
Real world impact
Because the appeal was dismissed, the conviction and the state court’s rejection of the discrimination claim stand, leaving the complainant’s allegations unresolved. The dismissal does not change jury-selection law or impose a new rule, and county practices in this case remain in effect without a federal ruling addressing the complaints.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall) would have set the case for argument, saying the evidence likely established prima facie racial, sex, and age discrimination and required further review.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?