Hobby v. United States
468 U.S. 339, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Discrimination in the selection of a federal grand jury foreman from an otherwise properly constituted grand jury does not violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process rights of a convicted defendant who is not a member of the excluded class, and therefore does not require dismissal of the indictment.
Facts:
- Petitioner, a white male, was alleged to have conspired to defraud the United States of funds appropriated under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (CETA).
- Petitioner was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- Evidence presented on petitioner's behalf showed that between 1974 and 1981, none of the 15 federal grand juries empaneled in the district had a Black or female foreman.
- During the same seven-year period, of the 15 deputy foremen appointed, three were Black and six were women.
- Petitioner asserted that this statistical disparity demonstrated unconstitutional discrimination in the foreman selection process.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner was indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- Before trial, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging unconstitutional discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreman.
- The District Court, after an evidentiary hearing, denied the petitioner's motion.
- After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted.
- The petitioner appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the foreman's role was ministerial and did not warrant dismissal.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits.
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 discrimination in the selection of a federal grand jury foreman, resulting in the underrepresentation of Black people and women, violate a white male defendant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, thereby requiring dismissal of the indictment against him?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No, discrimination in the selection of a federal grand jury foreman does not violate the defendant's due process rights or require dismissal of the indictment. The role of a foreman in the federal system is merely ministerial and does not affect the fundamental fairness of the grand jury process. Unlike discrimination in the selection of the grand jury as a whole, which implicates a defendant's right to a representative cross-section of the community, discrimination in appointing a foreman from among a properly constituted panel has no appreciable effect on the defendant's rights. The foreman's duties—administering oaths, maintaining records, and signing indictments—are clerical and carry no special power to influence the jury's decisions. This case is distinguished from Rose v. Mitchell, where the state foreman had substantive powers and was selected from the general population, not from the empaneled jury. Since the defendant's due process rights were not infringed, there is no basis to reverse his conviction or dismiss the indictment.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman requires dismissal of the indictment. The majority grievously underestimates the injury to the judicial system and the defendant. The discrimination was perpetrated by a federal judge, which erodes public confidence in the integrity of the entire judicial process. The foreman's role is not merely clerical but one of leadership, as shown by the Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors and the care judges take in their selection; this position of 'first among equals' carries persuasive influence. To allow such a constitutional violation to stand without a remedy renders the right meaningless. Dismissal is the only effective remedy to deter such unconstitutional conduct and vindicate the 'larger concerns' of justice and public trust.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the indictment should be dismissed. The principle that discrimination in the selection of a grand jury taints the judicial process must apply with equal force in the federal system as it does in state proceedings. The foreman's role has both practical and symbolic significance, and forbidding discrimination in this context is essential to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, the same standard that applies to states should be enforced in federal courts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the grounds for challenging a federal indictment based on discrimination in grand jury proceedings. By distinguishing the selection of the grand jury venire from the selection of the foreman, the Court insulates convictions from challenges where the discrimination does not affect the overall composition of the jury. It establishes that the role of a federal foreman is purely ministerial, lacking the constitutional significance to trigger a due process violation that would warrant dismissing an indictment. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for defendants, especially those not of the class discriminated against, to overturn convictions based on procedural irregularities within the grand jury room.
