Bush v. Kentucky
1 S. Ct. 625, 107 U.S. 110, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1207 (1883)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state statute explicitly excludes a class of citizens from jury service based on race, it is presumed that officials selecting a grand jury followed that unconstitutional statute. An indictment from such a grand jury violates the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and a subsequent judicial invalidation of the statute does not cure the defect.
Facts:
- John Bush, a citizen of African descent, was indicted for murder in Fayette County, Kentucky.
- At the time of Bush's indictment proceedings, Kentucky's General Statutes explicitly restricted jury service to 'white' citizens.
- After Bush's first conviction was overturned on other grounds, he was re-indicted for the same offense by a new grand jury.
- This new grand jury was selected in May 1880, while the statute excluding Black citizens from jury service was still formally in effect.
- In June 1880, after the grand jury that indicted Bush had been selected, the Kentucky Court of Appeals declared the 'white only' jury qualification unconstitutional in a separate case.
- Bush was tried and convicted based on the indictment returned by the grand jury selected in May 1880.
Procedural Posture:
- John Bush was indicted for murder in the Fayette County Circuit Court, a state trial court in Kentucky.
- After his first conviction was reversed on appeal by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Bush had the case removed to the U.S. Circuit Court.
- The U.S. Circuit Court quashed the first indictment because the grand jury had been selected under a racially discriminatory state law.
- State authorities then secured a new indictment against Bush from a new grand jury in the Fayette Circuit Court.
- Bush's counsel moved to set aside this second indictment on the same grounds, but the trial court overruled the motion.
- Bush was convicted at trial and sentenced to death.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Bush then brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an indictment returned by a grand jury, selected at a time when a state statute explicitly excluded citizens of the defendant's race from jury service, violate the defendant's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
Yes. An indictment from a grand jury selected under a law that facially discriminates based on race violates the defendant's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the grand jury which indicted Bush was selected before Kentucky's highest court declared the discriminatory statute unconstitutional. Therefore, it must be presumed that the jury commissioners followed the explicit text of the state law and excluded all citizens of African descent. This presumption is strengthened by the fact that the Kentucky legislature had twice re-enacted the discriminatory statute after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. A subsequent judicial ruling cannot retroactively validate a grand jury that was unconstitutionally formed. The denial of the motion to quash the indictment was therefore an error.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Waite
No. The indictment does not violate the defendant's rights. The dissenting opinion argued that the Court should not presume that Kentucky officials acted unconstitutionally. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Strauder v. West Virginia, which had already declared such laws unconstitutional, it should be presumed that state officials followed this supreme federal precedent, not their own invalid state statute. In the absence of proof that the jury commissioners actually excluded jurors because of their race, the indictment should stand.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Court's holding in Strauder v. West Virginia by establishing a crucial evidentiary presumption. It clarifies that when a state law is facially discriminatory regarding jury selection, courts will presume officials followed that law, shifting the burden to the state to prove they did not discriminate. The decision emphasizes that the constitutionality of a jury's formation is determined at the moment of selection. This ruling provided a powerful tool for defendants to challenge indictments in states that were slow to remove discriminatory laws from their statute books, even if those laws were no longer being actively enforced.
