Hernandez v texas

Circumstances or chance may well dictate that no persons in a certain class will serve on a particular jury or during Hernandez v texas particular period.

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)

The petitioner asserted that exclusion of this class deprived him, as a member of the class, of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The petitioner's initial burden in substantiating his charge of group discrimination was to prove that persons of Mexican descent constitute a separate class in Jackson County, distinct from "whites.

The State of Texas stipulated that 'for the last twenty-five years there is no record of any person with a Mexican or Latin American name having served on a jury commission, grand jury or petit jury in Jackson County.

Forumboth activist groups for civil rights for Mexican Americans. Faced with the separate but equal doctrine they argued that segregation of Mexican-origin persons was illegal in the absence of state law. He alleged that persons of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from service as jury commissioners, 1 grand Hernandez v texas, and petit jurors, although there were such persons fully qualified to serve residing in Jackson County.

HERNANDEZ v. STATE OF TEXAS.

Horace Wimberly, Yoakum, Hernandez v texas. In excluding Hispanics from jury duty, Texas had unreasonably singled out a class of people for different treatment and deprived the defendant of the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution. Corpus Christi ISDwhich recognized Hispanics as an identifiable minority group and utilized the Brown decision of to prohibit segregation.

To say that this decision revives the rejected contention that the Fourteenth Amendment requires proportional representation of all the component ethnic groups of the community on every jury [ Footnote 16 ] ignores the facts.

But it taxes our credulity to say that mere chance resulted in their being no members of this class among the over six thousand jurors called in the past 25 years. In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered and passed upon the substantial federal question raised by the petitioner.

After taking an oath that they will not knowingly select a grand juror they believe unfit or unqualified, the commissioners retire to a room in the courthouse where they select from the county assessment roll the names of 16 grand jurors from different parts of the county.

The decisions of this Court do not support that view. The judge instructs these commissioners as to their duties. This testimony is not enough to overcome the petitioner's case.

At the trial, the motions were renewed, further evidence taken, and the motions again denied. Until very recent times, children of Mexican descent were required to attend a segregated school for the first four grades. The result bespeaks discrimination, whether or not it was a conscious decision on the part of any individual jury commissioner.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. We granted a writ of certiorari to review that decision. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question of fact.

The petitioner asserted that exclusion of this class deprived him, as a member of the class, of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. An allegation that the trial court erred in denying the motions was the sole basis of petitioner's appeal.

Hernandez's pro bono legal team, including Gustavo C. Circumstances or chance may well dictate that no persons in a certain class will serve on a particular jury or during some particular period. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question of fact.

In that case, proof that Negroes constituted a substantial segment of the population of the jurisdiction, that some Negroes were qualified to serve as jurors, and that none had been called for jury service over an extended period of time, was held to constitute prima facie proof of the systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury service.

He alleged that persons of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from service as jury commissioners, 1 grand jurors, and petit jurors, although there were such persons fully qualified to serve residing in Jackson County.

In capital cases, a special venire may be selected from the list furnished by the commissioners. When the existence of a distinct class is demonstrated, and it is further shown that the laws, as written or as applied, single out that class for different treatment not based on some reasonable classification, the guarantees of the Constitution have been violated.

Carl Allsup, The American G. To rebut the strong prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution thus established, the State offered the testimony of five jury commissioners that they had no discriminated against persons of Mexican or Latin American descent in selecting jurors.

Hernandez v. Texas

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. These were the first Mexican-American lawyers to represent a defendant before the US Supreme Court, which heard their arguments on January 11, State of Alabama, U.

The judge instructs these commissioners as to their duties. Until very recent times, children of Mexican descent were required to attend a segregated school for the first four grades. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question of fact.

As the petitioner acknowledges, the Texas system of selecting grand and petit jurors by the use of jury commissions is fair on its face and capable of being utilized without discrimination. Those who administered the process of Hernandez v texas selection introduced discrimination because of exclusion based on class.

The case was a valuable precedent until it was replaced in by Cisneros v. Those who administered the process of jury selection introduced discrimination because of exclusion based on class. The ultimate effect of this ruling was that the protection of the 14th Amendment was ruled to cover any national or ethnic groups of the United States for which discrimination could be proved.

HERNÁNDEZ V. STATE OF hazemagmaroc.com first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period was Hernández v.

the State of Texas. In Pete Hernández, a migrant cotton picker, was accused of murdering Joe Espinosa in Edna, Texas, a small town in Jackson County, where no person of Mexican origin had. Hernandez v. Texas. No. Argued January 11, Decided May 3, U.S.

Syllabus. The systematic exclusion of persons of Mexican descent from service as jury commissioners, grand jurors, and petit jurors in the Texas county in which petitioner was indicted and tried for murder, although there were a substantial number of such.

Citation. U.S. (). Brief Fact Summary. Defendant challenged his indictment and conviction as having been obtained in violation of the Equal. 2 5. Summary B. The Mulitracial Equal Protection Clause C. The Racialization of Mexicans in Jackson County, Texas D. The Court’s General Acceptance of Hernandez hazemagmaroc.com’s Racial Teachings II.

Pete Hernandez, an agricultural worker, was indicted for the murder of Joe Espinoza by an all-Anglo (white) grand jury in Jackson County, Texas.

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)

Claiming that Mexican-Americans were barred from the jury commission that selected juries, and from petit juries, Hernandez' attorneys tried to quash the indictment.

United States Supreme Court HERNANDEZ v. TEXAS, () No. Argued: January 11, Decided: May 3, The systematic exclusion of persons of Mexican descent from service as jury commissioners, grand jurors, and petit jurors in the Texas county in which petitioner was indicted and tried for murder, although there were a substantial number of such persons in the county fully qualified .

Hernandez v texas
Rated 5/5 based on 52 review
Hernandez v. Texas :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center