430 U.S. 482, 97 S. Ct. 1272, 51 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1977)
In March 1972, Rodrigo Partida was indicted by a grand jury in Hidalgo County, Texas, for burglary of a private residence at night with intent to rape.1 After a trial before a petit jury, Partida was convicted and sentenced to eight years in the custody of the Texas Department of Corrections.2 He first raised his claim of discrimination in the grand jury selection process on a motion for new trial in the State District Court.3
In support of his motion, Partida testified about the general existence of discrimination against Mexican-Americans in that area of Texas and introduced statistics from the 1970 census and the Hidalgo County grand jury records.4 The census figures showed that in 1970 the population of Hidalgo County was 181,535, with persons of Spanish language or Spanish surname totaling 143,611, or 79.1 percent of the county's population.5 Partida's data compiled from the Hidalgo County grand jury records from 1962 to 1972 showed that over that period the average percentage of Spanish-surnamed grand jurors was 39 percent.6 The average rose to 45.5 percent during the 2 1/2-year period when the District Judge who impaneled the jury that indicted Partida was in charge.7 It reached 50 percent on the list from which that grand jury was selected.8 Partida also introduced 1970 census data illustrating socioeconomic disadvantages faced by Mexican-Americans in the county.9 The State offered no evidence attacking these allegations or demonstrating that the statistics were unreliable.
The State District Court denied the motion for a new trial.10 On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Partida had failed to make out a prima facie case.11 After exhausting his state remedies, Partida filed his petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court, alleging a denial of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because of gross underrepresentation of Mexican-Americans on the Hidalgo County grand juries.12
At a hearing at which the state transcript was introduced, the petitioner presented the testimony of the state judge who selected the jury commissioners who had compiled the list from which Partida's grand jury was taken.13 The judge reviewed the State's grand jury selection process and testified that he tried to appoint a greater number of Mexican-Americans than members of other ethnic groups.14 He instructed the commissioners about the qualifications of a grand juror.15 The jury commissioners themselves were never called to testify.16 On the basis of the evidence before it, the Federal District Court concluded that Partida had made out a bare prima facie case of invidious discrimination but that the case was rebutted, in part by the presence of a Mexican-American governing majority in the county, and dismissed the petition.17 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed.18 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the existence of a governing majority in itself can rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in grand jury selection, and, if not, whether the State otherwise met its burden of proof.19
Whether the State of Texas successfully rebutted respondent prisoner's prima facie showing of discrimination against Mexican-Americans in the state grand jury selection process?20
A defendant establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in grand jury selection by showing that an identifiable class suffered substantial underrepresentation over a significant period of time.21 The selection procedure must be susceptible of abuse or not racially neutral.22 Once the prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the State to rebut the presumption by demonstrating that permissible racially neutral selection criteria and procedures produced the monochromatic result.23
No. Partida established the prima facie case through 1970 census data showing Mexican-Americans comprised 79.1 percent of Hidalgo County's population yet averaged only 39 percent of grand jurors summoned from 1962 to 1972 under the key-man system.24 The procedure is highly subjective because jury commissioners exercise broad discretion without recorded neutral criteria.25 The State offered no evidence attacking these statistics or demonstrating their unreliability. The state judge's testimony addressed only the appointment of commissioners and general qualification instructions without any reference to safeguards against group discrimination.26
The jury commissioners themselves, who alone could have explained the actual operation of the selection process, were never called to testify.27
The State failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination in the grand jury selection process.28
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Chief Justice Burger And Justice Rehnquist
Justice Powell would have held that the statistical disparity alone could not establish purposeful discrimination when Mexican-Americans held a governing majority of elective offices and three of the five jury commissioners were Mexican-American.29 He reasoned that the District Court's finding of no intentional discrimination was not clearly erroneous.30 The same class controlled both the political process and the jury selection mechanism, making an inference of self-discrimination improbable without additional evidence of intent.31
The testimony of the state trial judge and facts subject to judicial notice sufficed to satisfy the State's burden of production.32 At the close of the evidence the question was whether respondent had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the State had deliberately and systematically denied members of his class the right to participate as jurors.33
Joined by Justice Powell And Justice Rehnquist
Chief Justice Burger concluded that respondent never established a prima facie case because the statistics relied on gross population figures rather than eligible population statistics.34 He noted that the 1970 census showed substantial numbers of Spanish-surnamed adults lacked schooling.35 The State had included large numbers of Mexican-Americans on recent grand jury lists.36
Therefore the burden never shifted to require rebuttal evidence.37 Eligible population statistics, not gross population figures, provide the relevant starting point.38 Respondent offered no evidence relating to the eligible population in Hidalgo County.39
The presumption of constitutionality attaching to state procedures has even greater force where exactly one-half the members of the grand jury list were members of the allegedly excluded class.40
Whether the existence of a governing majority of Mexican-Americans in Hidalgo County can itself rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in grand jury selection?41
The existence of a governing majority of the allegedly excluded class among elected officials or jury commissioners does not, without more, rebut a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination, because the Court will not presume as a matter of law that members of one definable group will not discriminate against other members of that group.42
No. The established facts show that Mexican-Americans constituted 79.1 percent of the county population and held a majority of elective positions, yet the 11-year grand jury statistics still reflected a 40-percentage-point disparity.43 The District Court relied on this governing-majority circumstance to conclude the prima facie case was rebutted.44 The facts contain no evidence explaining how the jury commissioners actually applied neutral criteria or why the underrepresentation persisted even during periods when Mexican-American political influence was at its height.45 The relevance of a governing majority of elected officials to the grand jury selection process is questionable because the fact that Mexican-American elected officials are Mexican-American demonstrates nothing about the motivations and methods of the grand jury commissioners.46
The existence of a governing majority cannot itself rebut the prima facie case.47
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall rejected any presumption that Mexican-American officials would not discriminate against other Mexican-Americans.48 He emphasized that social science research shows members of minority groups who achieve success sometimes adopt negative attitudes toward their own group.49 The only reliable way to rebut a statistical prima facie case is for the State to produce testimony from the actual commissioners describing their selection methods.50
Social scientists agree that members of minority groups frequently respond to discrimination by attempting to disassociate themselves from the group.51 Such behavior occurs with particular frequency among members of minority groups who have achieved some measure of economic or political success.52 The question for decision is not how Mexican-Americans treat other Mexican-Americans in general but how the particular grand jury commissioners in Hidalgo County acted.53
Justice Stewart would have reversed the Court of Appeals on the ground that the District Court's factual findings, including its assessment of the governing-majority evidence, were not clearly erroneous under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).54 Given those findings, there was no constitutional violation in the selection of the grand jury that indicted the respondent.55 He added that he was in substantial agreement with the dissenting opinions of the Chief Justice and Justice Powell.56
The findings of the District Court in this case cannot be said to be clearly erroneous.57 Upon that basis the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.58