Norris v. Alabama
294 U.S. 587, 55 S. Ct. 579, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 58 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The systematic and long-continued exclusion of a racial group from jury service violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Evidence of such prolonged, total exclusion establishes a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose, shifting the burden to the state to prove the exclusion was not based on race.
Facts:
- Clarence Norris, a Black man, was one of nine Black youths indicted in Jackson County, Alabama for rape in 1931.
- After his first conviction was reversed, his new trial was moved to Morgan County, Alabama.
- In Jackson County, where Norris was indicted, undisputed testimony from witnesses aged fifty to seventy-six established that no Black person had served on a grand or petit jury within living memory.
- In Morgan County, where the trial was held, undisputed testimony similarly showed that no Black person had ever served on a jury, despite making up a significant portion of the population (8,311 of 46,176).
- Witnesses in both counties provided lists of numerous Black citizens who met the statutory qualifications for jury service, including property owners, business men, and school board members.
- Jury commissioners from Jackson County testified that in compiling jury rolls, the issue of race was 'never discussed.'
- A jury commissioner from Morgan County testified that he did not know of a single Black person in the entire county who possessed the qualifications to be a juror.
- Expert testimony indicated that the names of six Black men found on the Jackson County jury roll had been fraudulently added after the roll was officially completed.
Procedural Posture:
- Clarence Norris was indicted for rape by a grand jury in Jackson County, Alabama, and was initially convicted.
- That conviction was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama (1932) on the grounds that the defendants were denied effective assistance of counsel.
- Upon remand, Norris's counsel successfully moved for a change of venue, and the case was transferred to the trial court in Morgan County, Alabama.
- Before the new trial began, Norris's counsel filed motions to quash both the indictment (from Jackson County) and the trial jury pool (venire) in Morgan County, arguing that Black citizens were systematically excluded from jury service in both counties.
- The Alabama trial court heard evidence and denied both motions.
- Norris was convicted at trial and sentenced to death.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the conviction, specifically ruling against Norris on his federal claim of discriminatory jury exclusion.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Alabama Supreme Court's decision.
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 the systematic and long-continued exclusion of African Americans from the grand jury and trial jury lists, solely because of their race or color, violate a Black defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hughes
Yes. The systematic exclusion of African Americans from jury service violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The evidence presented by the defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination, which the state failed to rebut. The Court reasoned that the long-continued, unvarying, and wholesale exclusion of Black citizens from juries in both counties, despite the presence of many qualified individuals, created a strong inference of discriminatory purpose. The general denials of discrimination by the jury commissioners were insufficient to overcome this showing. The Court found the testimony of one commissioner, who claimed no Black person in Morgan County was qualified, to be 'so sweeping and so contrary to the evidence' that it was not credible. When a defendant provides strong evidence of total exclusion over a generation, the state cannot meet its burden of rebuttal with 'mere general asseverations' of good faith; to allow this would render the constitutional protection a 'vain and illusory requirement.'
Analysis:
Norris v. Alabama is a landmark decision that gave practical effect to the anti-discrimination principle regarding jury selection established in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). By creating a burden-shifting framework, the Court empowered defendants to challenge facially neutral jury selection laws that were applied in a discriminatory manner. The decision affirmed the Supreme Court's authority to independently review state court factual findings when a federal right is at stake, preventing states from shielding unconstitutional practices behind deferential state-level review. This case provided a crucial tool for civil rights litigants to combat systemic racism in the justice system by making it more difficult for officials to simply deny discriminatory intent in the face of overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
