Virginia v. Rives
1879 U.S. LEXIS 1831, 25 L. Ed. 667, 100 U.S. 313 (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal removal statute (Rev. Stat. § 641) permits a defendant to remove a state criminal prosecution to federal court only when a denial of equal civil rights is caused by the state's constitution or laws. The statute does not authorize removal based on allegations of discriminatory acts by state officials who are violating non-discriminatory state laws.
Facts:
- Burwell Reynolds and Lee Reynolds, two young Black men, were charged with murdering a white man in Patrick County, Virginia.
- Virginia state law stipulated that all male citizens between the ages of 21 and 60 who were entitled to vote and hold office were eligible for jury service, with no racial exclusion.
- The defendants alleged that officials in Patrick County had a long-standing practice of excluding Black citizens from serving on juries in any case, civil or criminal, involving a member of their race.
- The grand jury that indicted the Reynolds brothers was composed entirely of white citizens.
- The venire (the pool of potential jurors) summoned for their trial was also composed entirely of white citizens.
- The defendants alleged that a strong prejudice existed against them in the community solely because they were Black and the alleged victim was white, making a fair trial before an all-white jury impossible.
Procedural Posture:
- Burwell and Lee Reynolds were indicted for murder in the county court of Patrick County, Virginia.
- The case was moved for trial to the Circuit Court of the State for Patrick County.
- In the state Circuit Court, the defendants' motion to modify the all-white jury venire to include Black citizens was overruled.
- The defendants then filed a petition to remove the case to the U.S. Circuit Court for the Western District of Virginia, which the state court denied.
- The defendants were tried, and the initial convictions were set aside.
- Upon being brought for a second trial, their renewed petition for removal was again denied by the state court.
- One defendant was convicted in the second trial, while the other case resulted in a hung jury.
- The defendants then presented a petition and a copy of the state court record to the U.S. Circuit Court, which granted the petition, docketed the case, and issued a writ of habeas corpus cum causa to take the defendants into federal custody.
- The Commonwealth of Virginia then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order to compel the federal judge to return the defendants to state custody.
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 a state criminal defendant's allegation that state officials have excluded members of their race from the jury pool, in violation of a racially neutral state law, constitute a denial of rights 'in the judicial tribunals of the State' sufficient to justify removal to federal court under Section 641 of the Revised Statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Strong
No. A defendant cannot remove their case to federal court under Section 641 by alleging discriminatory conduct by state officials when the state's laws themselves are not discriminatory. The court reasoned that the removal statute is aimed at state laws that, on their face, deny a defendant's civil rights, making a fair trial in state court a legal impossibility from the outset. When a state's laws are fair, but a subordinate state officer acts in a discriminatory manner contrary to those laws (e.g., a jury commissioner excluding Black jurors), it is not a denial of rights 'by the State' in the manner contemplated by the statute. The proper remedy for such misconduct is to raise the issue within the state judicial system, such as through a motion to quash the jury panel, with the presumption that the state courts will correct the wrong. The revisory power of the U.S. Supreme Court remains the ultimate check for denials of rights by state judicial tribunals, but pre-trial removal to a lower federal court is not the appropriate mechanism for addressing the illegal actions of individual officials.
Concurring - Justice Field
No. The prosecution should be returned to the state court. Justice Field agreed with the majority’s interpretation of the removal statute, finding it applies only to denials of rights stemming from state legislation, not from the prejudice of officials or the community. However, he wrote separately to argue that the removal statute itself is unconstitutional as applied to state criminal prosecutions. He contended that the federal judicial power under the Constitution does not extend to common-law crimes like murder, which are offenses against state sovereignty. Allowing a federal court to assume original jurisdiction over such a case, even by removal, would be a dangerous and unconstitutional infringement upon the independence and authority of the states to enforce their own criminal laws.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the federal removal statute, a key piece of Reconstruction-era legislation designed to protect the rights of newly freed slaves. By distinguishing between de jure discrimination (by law), which permits removal, and de facto discrimination (by the acts of officials), which does not, the Court limited a defendant's ability to escape a biased state judicial system. The ruling placed the initial burden of correcting discriminatory jury selection on the state courts themselves, requiring defendants to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal review. This precedent effectively weakened a federal tool for protecting civil rights and reinforced the primacy of state courts in administering criminal justice, even when their officials were alleged to be acting in a discriminatory fashion.
