Broadway v. Culpepper Brief of Appellees

    IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o . 29.391
CARL BROADWAY, et a!, U.S.A. 

versus

ROBERT CULPEPPER. JR., et al

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of Georgia, Honorable J. Robert Elliott,

Judge

BRIEF OF APPELLEES

Frank S. Twitty 
Frank S. Twitty, Jr.
P. O. Box 385 
Camilla, Georgia 31730

L. Earl Jones 
Newton, Georgia 31770 
Attorneys for Appellees



INDEX
Page

NATURE AND HISTORY OF CASE
COUNTER STATEMENT OF FA CTS....................... 1
ISSUES ON APPEAL ................................................... 3
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES . . 4
REBUTTAL TO GOVERNMENTS POSITION.........13

CONCLUSION .............................................................. 16

CITATIONS
Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 89 L. Ed. 1962 ................6
Joni Rabinowitz vs. United States of America, 336

F. (2d) 34 (5th Cir.) ...............................................  6
Michael Waldo Simmons vs. U.S.A., 406 F. (2d)

456 (5th Cir.) .......................................................... 8
Mobley v. U.S., 379 (2d) 768 (5th Cir.) .........................11
Swain vs. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202, 13 L Ed (2d) 759 . . . .  6
Thiel v. Southern Pacific, 328 U. S. 217, 90 L. Ed.

1181 ........................................................................ 12
Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346, 24 L Ed (2d) 567 . . . .  15
U.S.A. vs. Ditommaso and U.S.A. vs. Waugaman,

405 F (2d) 385 .......................................................... 11
United States Ex Rel Seals v. Wiman, 304 F (2d)

53 (5th Cir.) ............................................................... 12
EXHIBITS

Certificates of Leslie Bush, Clerk Superior Court
Baker County, Georgia ..................................... 18



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 29,391

CARL BROADWAY, et al, U.S.A., 

versus

ROBERT CULPEPPER, JR., et al,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of Georgia,

Honorable J. Robert Elliott, Judge

BRIEF OF APPELLEES

I

NATURE AND HISTORY OF CASE.
COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This case was initiated as a class action by Negro 
citizens of Baker County, alleging that Negroes and 
women had been systematically excluded from the 
county jury rolls because of their race and sex, in vio­
lation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States. The complaint sought in­
junctive relief. Subsequently, the United States was 
allowed to intervene in the case.



2

Following an evidentiary hearing on the merits, the 
District Court on May 8, 1969 (App. 291) found the 
Baker County jury list to be violative of the constitu­
tional rights of Negro citizens and entered an order 
requiring the defendants to compile a new jury list in 
accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia and 
the Federal Constitutional Mandate,

The Court’s decree took notice of the fact that 
Georgia law requires the jury commissioners to re­
compile the jury lists periodically and made mention 
that the Court was aware that at the time of the orig­
inal hearing on this matter it was mentioned that an­
other revision of the jury lists in Baker County would 
be shortly forthcoming. In this connection the Court 
stated that if the jury lists had been completely re­
vised since the original hearing the jury commission­
ers may have taken action on their own initiative to 
correct the deficiencies noted with regard to the lists 
which were in existence at the time of hearing, and 
the decree provided that if such action as was re­
quired by the decree in regard to the compiling of a 
new list had already been accomplished by the jury 
lists as revised and now in use, an affirmative and doc­
umented showing of such fact could be made forthwith 
to the Court, the Court specifying what such a docu­
mented showing should encompass.

Such a showing was made in writing to this Court 
in June, 1969, (App. 339 et seq) the Defendants suggest­
ing that the new traverse and grand jury lists compiled 
since the original evidentiary hearing were now so



3

constituted as to meet the requirements of law and to 
satisfy the mandate of the decree issued by this Court.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs moved for an evidentiary 
hearing on the report and the Intervenor (U.S.A.) filed 
a motion to compel the Defendants to make further re­
vision of the new jury list, these motions being based 
on allegations that the new list did not represent a 
fair cross-section of the community. Further eviden­
tiary hearing was granted and the motions considered 
in October, 1969. (App. 295)

The only testimony submitted was the witness Leslie 
Bush, a defendant, Clerk of Superior Court of Baker 
County, Georgia and also Clerk to the jury commis­
sioners of Baker County. (App. p. 299-335)

II

ISSUES ON APPEAL

The appellants contend that the issue to be presented 
for review is, “Whether the District Court erred in fail­
ing to require the defendants to include the name of 
additional Black citizens on the jury lists where the 
record showed that in the past Blacks had been syste­
matically excluded from the jury rolls and the current 
lists resulted in 36.29% of the adult White population 
and 17.31% of the adult Black population being repre­
sented on the rolls.”



4

We do not consider this as the real issue as it is 
based on the premise that there should be a certain 
percentage of the various races on the jury rolls.

We think that the real issue is:
“Is the jury list of Baker County, as now constituted, 

a fair representative cross-section of the upright and 
intelligent citizens of the county.”

Ill
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES

We feel that the evidence adduced on the hearing 
held on October 22, 1969 (App. 295 et seq.) shows that 
the jury commissioners of Baker County fully com­
plied with the provisions of the decree of the District 
Court filed May 8, 1969. We feel that the traverse and 
grand juries, as now constituted, represent a fair 
cross-section of the qualified citizens of Baker County, 
without any discrimination as to race, creed, color or 
sex.

We produced sworn testimony in support of the re­
port filed with this court and the plaintiffs introduced 
no evidence whatsoever to contradict the report made. 
Therefore, we think that the jury list of Baker County 
meets all the tests that have been previously laid down 
by our courts. It was taken from the voters list, it rep­
resented a percentage comparable to the percentage 
on voters list, the plaintiffs suggested names, other 
prominent Negroes suggested names, an attempt was



5

made to contact all registered voters and the list as 
made up represents a cross-section of the resident 
qualified citizens of Baker County.

The only other question is that raised by the inter­
vener, the Department of Justice. It is their claim that 
the percentage of Negroes on the jury list is not com­
parable to the percentage of citizens. In other words 
they contend that the qualified voters should be in ac­
cordance with the population. However, we call the 
court’s attention to the fact that no evidence was intro­
duced by the government or the plaintiffs to show that 
the jury commissioners were now discriminating a- 
gainst the Negroes or that Negroes were being kept off 
the jury solely because of their race.

The government overlooks several important things. 
First the commissioners are admonished to use the 
voters list as the basis for selecting jurors. The per­
centage on this list is 63% white and 37% Negro. The 
jury list is approximately 66% white and 34% Negro.

And of course this court admonished the commis­
sioners to follow the Georgia law and select the jurors 
from intelligent and upright citizens. There is no dis­
pute but that this was done.

So this leaves us with the question, as to whether, the 
jurors selected be in proportion to the population by 
races. This has never been held by any of our courts, 
to our knowledge.



6

In SWAIN v. ALABAMA, 380 U. S. 202, 13 L. Ed. 2d 
759 (1965), the Court said:

“Neither the jury roll nor the venire need be a 
perfect mirror of the community or accurately 
reflect the proportionate strength of every 
identifiable group.” (p. 208)

Even in the JONI RABINOWITZ v. UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, 366 Federal Reporter (2d) 34 
the Fifth Circuit speaking through Judge Rives, said 
in part:

“Lest we be misunderstood, we repeat the 
caution of the Supreme Court in Swain v. Ala­
bama 1964, 380 U.S. 202, 208: “But a defendant 
in a criminal case is not constitutionally en­
titled to demand a proportionate number of his 
race on the jury which tries him nor on the 
venire or jury roll from which Petit jurors are 
drawn. Neither the jury roll nor the venire need 
be a perfect mirror of the community or ac­
curately reflect the proportionate strength of 
every identifiable group. Obviously the number 
of races and nationalities appearing in the an­
cestry of our citizens would make it impossible 
to meet a requirement of proportional repre­
sentation.”

In the case of AKINS v. TEXAS, 325 U. S. 398, 89 L. 
Ed. 1962, the Supreme Court held in part:



7

“Fairness in selection has never been held to 
require proportional representation of races 
upon a jury. Purposeful discrimination is not 
sustained by a showing that on a single grand 
jury the number of members of one race is less 
than that race’s proportion of the eligible in­
dividuals. The number of our races and na­
tionalities stands in the way of evolution of 
such a conception of due process or equal pro­
tection. Defendants under our criminal statutes 
are not entitled to demand representatives of 
their racial inheritance upon juries by whom 
they are tried. But such defendants are entitled 
to require that those who are trusted with jury 
selection shall not pursue a course of conduct 
which results in discrimination in the selection 
of jurors on racial grounds.” (p. 403)

“Our directions that indictments be quashed 
when Negroes, although numerous in the com­
munity, were excluded from, grand jury lists 
have been based on the theory that their contin­
ual exclusion indicated discrimination and. not 
on the theory that racial groups must be rec­
ognized. The mere fact of inequality in the 
number selected does not in itself show dis­
crimination. A purpose to discriminate must 
be present which may be proven by systematic 
exclusion of eligible jurymen of the pro­
scribed race or by unequal application of the 
law to such an extent as to show intentional 
discrimination.” (p. 403-4)



8

One of the most recent cases decided by the 5th Cir­
cuit regarding the composition of juries is the case of 
MICHAEL WALDO SIMMONS v. U.S.A., 406 Fed. (2d) 
456. In that case the court said in part:

“Appellant attacks the denial of his motion to 
dismiss the indictment on the ground that there 
was racial discrimination in regard to the com­
position of the jury wheel from which prospec­
tive jurors were selected. In United States v. 
Tillman, N.D. Ga, 1967, 272 F. Supp. 908, 910-912, 
Judge Smith succinctly explained the method 
by which jurors were chosen in the Atlanta 
Division: “In brief, the court provided for the 
selection of every 50th name (or 2%) on the 
voter registration lists of each county in the 
Atlanta Division to be mailed questionnaires. 
The jury questionnaires were properly mailed, 
with a return of 50-60 per cent. Only those per­
sons were disqualified by the Clerk and Jury 
Commissioner whose answers stated that 
they had not attained the age of 21 years; or 
had been convicted in a State or Federal court 
of record of a crime punishable by imprison­
ment for more than one year; or they could 
not read, write, speak and understand the Eng­
lish language; or they had a mental or physi­
cal infirmity which would prevent them from 
rendering efficient jury service (except that all 
females over 70 and all males over 75 were dis­
qualified). * * * On this basis, approximately 
90% of persons returning questionnaires were



9

found qualified, and all persons not disqualified 
were placed in the jury wheel.”

“The net result of this jury selection procedure 
was that 15.77% of the persons whose names 
were in the jury wheel were Negroes, whereas 
Negroes comprised 20.48% of the population of 
the Atlanta Division, if we assume that the 
1960 census figures are still accurate. Thus, it 
is appellant’s theory that the disparity in per­
centages between the Negro proportion of the 
population at large and the Negro proportion 
of prospective jurors fatally taints his convic­
tion.”

“It is well settled that Negroes may not be 
systematically and arbitrarily excluded from 
the jury venires from which the grand jury 
is selected which has indicted a Negro defend­
ant and that a conviction cannot stand if the 
petit jury is drawn from a list similarly com­
posed.”

“ However, neither the jury wheel nor the ve­
nire need precisely conform to the proportion­
ate strength of each identifiable group in the 
total population. Swain v. State of Alabama, 
380 U. S. at 208, 85 Ct. 829. See also Mobley v. 
United States, 379 F. 2d at 771-772; Comment, 
The Fifth Circuit: New History for an Old 
Problem Jury Selection, 1 Ga. L. Rev. 674, 680 
(1967). It is sufficient, according to the tradi-



10

tional formulation, if jurors are “drawn from a 
fair cross-section of the community.” Mobley 
v. United States, supra at 771. See also Smith 
v. State of Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 61 S. Ct. 164, 85 
L. Ed. 84 (1940); Glasser v. United States, 315 
U. S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942); Thiel 
v. Southern Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217, 66 S.Ct. 984, 
90 L. Ed. 1181 (1946); Scott v. Walker, 5 Cir., 
1966, 358 F. 2d 561, 564; Chance v. United States 
5 Cir., 1963, 322 F. 2d 201, 204, 205; United States 
v. Dennis, 2 Cir., 1950, 183 F. 2d 204, 224 (Judge 
Learned Hand); Rabinowitz v. United States, 5 
Cir., 1966, 366 F. 2d 34, 57, and cases cited there­
in. See Note, The Defendant’s Challenge to a 
Racial Criterion in Jury Selection: A Study in 
Standing, Due Process and Equal Protection, 
74 Yale L.J. 919, 923-924 (1965). The determina­
tion of what is a fair cross-section depends 
upon the facts of each case, and under the cir­
cumstances herein presented, we find that the 
underrepresentation of Negroes in the jury 
wheel in comparison with their share of the 
total population was not of such magnitude as 
to warrant overturning the appellant’s convic­
tion.”

“Compare Swain v. State of Alabama. 380 
U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824 (1965) (Male Negroes con­
stitute 26% of all males in the county, but only 
constitute 10 to 15% of jury panels. System, of 
selection held to be ‘imperfect’ but still law­
ful.), and Chance v. United States, supra



11

(Negroes constitute 12% of population, but only 
10% of names in jury box. Held lawful.)” .

In the case of: U.S.A. v. DITOMMASO and U.S.A. v. 
WAUGAMAN, 405 F. (2d) 385, 389, it was said:

“The constitutional principle that juries must 
be selected from a fair cross-section of the com­
munity is now well established. While the 
cross-sectional concept is firmly embedded in 
law, the constitution does not require that the 
jury or jury venire be a statistical mirror of 
the community. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 7 
L. Ed. (2d) 118; Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202,
13 L. Ed. (2d) 759; Mobley v. U.S., 379 F. 2d 768 
(5 Cir. 1967); Dow v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel 
Corporation, 224 F. 2d 414, 100 L. Ed. 842.”

It should be observed that the jury commissioners 
did send out questionnaires to everyone on the voters 
list 2525 persons and received replies to 1039 of which 
number 550 were qualified and desired to serve. It is 
to be noted that there are 590 names on the present 
traverse jury list. The questionnaires were almost 
duplicate copies of the ones being sent to all prospec­
tive jurors for our Federal Courts. I would like to point 
out this method has been approved by the Judicial 
Conference of United States as found in 26 F. R. D. 
400, 421. The report made the following recommenda­
tions.

“V. In order to determine whether persons



12

under consideration for selection of jurors 
possess the required qualifications, it is recom­
mended that, when practicable, the practice 
should be followed in every district of requir­
ing each prospective juror to answer a ques­
tionnaire — where such practice is followed, 
no name should be placed in the jury box or 
wheel, or added to the jury lists, until the jury 
commissioner, from its investigation is satis­
fied that the juror is qualified.”

Also in UNITED STATES EX REL SEALS v. WI- 
MAN, 5 Cir. 1962, 304 F 2d 53, that court said the test 
was to be made largely on the basis of objective results, 
The third circuit court of appeals has described the 
test in terms of negligence — federal jury officials may 
not exclude any economic, social, religious, racial, 
political or geographical groups either intentionally or 
through negligence. Dow v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel 
Corporation, 224 F. 2d 414.

And a good summary of the problem is found in the 
case of: THIEL v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U. S. 
217, 90 L. Ed 1181, wherein it was said:

“The American tradition of trial by jury con­
sidered in connection with either criminal or 
civil proceedings, necessarily contemplates an 
impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of 
the community. Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128; 
Glasser v. U. S., 315 U. S. 60. This does not mean, 
of course, that every jury must contain repre­



13

sentatives of all the economic, social, religious, 
racial, political and geographical groups of 
community, frequently such complete repre­
sentation would be impossible. But it does 
mean that prospective jurors shall be selected 
by court officials without systematic and in­
tentional exclusion of any of these groups. 
Jury acceptance is an individual rather than a 
group or class matter. That fact lies at the very 
heart of the jury system.”

REBUTTAL TO GOVERNMENTS POSITION

In addition to the cases cited above, which have 
declared that no segment of the population is entitled 
to a certain percentage of their number on the jury 
rolls, we would call the courts attention to certain 
factual situations.

The government claims that the source of most 
names of the most recent jury revision in Baker Coun­
ty was the voters list, which it claims is underrepre­
sentative of the Negro community.

We submit that it has been held by the Appellate 
Courts that it is not illegal to use the voters list as the 
main source.

Furthermore, neither the government nor the plain­
tiffs introduced any evidence to show that there had 
been any discrimination in the makeup of the voters 
list. As a matter of fact the witnesses stated they did



14

not know of any discrimination that now existed as far 
as the voters list was concerned.

Counsel for the government stated that the District 
Court had held that the jury list selected from the voters 
list was unconstitutional. That is not a true statement. 
What the District Court held was that the original 
jury list was unconstitutional because of the use of the 
segregated tax digest. The court further said that even 
though the jury list was used the taint of the segregated 
tax digest made the revision void. But in the latest re­
vision approved by the court the jury list (as provided 
by the laws of Georgia) was used, but not the tax di­
gest. Also other methods were used as set out herein.

Typically, counsel for the government asserted in its 
motion to compel another revision of the jury list, filed 
July 7, 1969 (appendix p. 405). “The defendants claimed 
to have used sources other than the voters list. Yet none 
of the 70 names in the Newton, Georgia telephone direc­
tory which are not on the voters list appear on the jury 
list.”

Counsel for the government has attached Appendix 
A which is a list of names found in the Newton, Georgia 
telephone book that are not on the official registered 
voters list of Baker County.

Attached to our brief is a certification, that of the 
names appearing in Appendix A, 5 are on voters list in 
own name, 28 are on voters list in another name; 17 are 
non-residents of the county; 9' are deceased and 6 un­



15

accounted for. So a great majority of those eligible 
and who are in the telephone directory are on the 
voters list.

Also, we would call the courts attention to the fact 
that three cases were tried at the January Term 1970 
of Baker Superior Court, being as follows:

1. State Highway Dept, of Ga. vs. Mrs. Eunice O. 
Rooks Case No. 6

2. Henry Hall & L. W. Johnson vs. Orange Hawkins 
Case No. 3003-4

3. State vs. Stephen Peace Case No. 1458

In case No. 1 the makeup of the jury was 7 white and 
5 black. In case No. 2, 5 white and 7 black. In case No. 
3, 6 white and 6 black. See certificate of Clerk attached 
to this brief.

The Supreme Court of the United States held in the 
case of: TURNER v. FOUCHE, 396 U. S. 346, 24 L Ed 
(2d) 567

“The provisions of Georgia law conferring dis­
cretion on county officials in the selection of 
jury commissioners and prospective grand 
jurors were not unconstitutional on their face 
as providing officials an opportunity to dis­
criminate on the basis of race, the procedure 
not being inherently unfair or necessarily in-



16

capable of administration without regard to 
race.”

CONCLUSION

I think I could best sum up by quoting what two of 
the plaintiffs in this suit testified at the original hear­
ing. They said that while Baker County had in the past 
discriminated against the Negroes and women, that 
they are now doing a good job and anyone can vote 
who so desires and the juries contain fair representa­
tion of all races.

However, we submit that the report of the jury com­
missioners and the testimony of Clerk Leslie Bush re­
veal that the jury as now drawn represents a fair 
cross-section of all eligible citizens of Baker County.

The number of Negroes on the jury list has continued 
to rise and as a matter of fact in one district the “ Hog- 
gard Mill District” there are actually more Negroes in 
the jury box than whites. The score being 45 Negroes 
and 38 white.

The evidence is certainly overwhelming that the jury 
commissioners have honestly tried and have achieved 
a jury roster that fairly represents every segment of 
society of Baker County.

The contention of the Justice Department that the 
present percentage of Negroes is unlawful is not borne 
out either by the facts or the decisions of our Federal



17

Courts. They have failed to show any discrimination 
whatsoever and we feel the percentages are well within 
accepted bounds.

We therefore respectfully request the court to ap­
prove the list of traverse and grand jurors of Baker 
County as shown by the revision of June 6, 1969, and 
approved by the District Court on December 15, 1969.

EARL JONES
Newton, Georgia

TWITTY & TWITTY

Attorney for Jury 
Commissioners of Baker 
County, Georgia.

P. O. Box 385 
Camilla, Georgia 31730



APPENDIX
18

A

This appendix shows the names o f  persons found in  

the Newton, Georgia telephone book that are hot on the 

o f f i c i a l  reg istered  voters  l i s t  f o r  Baker County;

Adkins, A H ,
r s jM h lr  C c . A llen , Hugh P. t 

B a rfie ld , Glenn 
Blackett;, H ill 
Blades; ea r l F.

Clzacao^uw Broadwater, Joe
I 'U ttfr  H . gyg-jjj j  l  M rs, ,

Carr; B a ilie  C MrS.
•--------  Cherry, E lizabeth

c w 'u-cc&hi J-̂ aA C hriBti, Frank 
Cowart; Saul

CP ya~« Y/Wc.H'ir Dean, A lic e  Mrs.
Edwards, Bessie MrS. 

Gv H- ToA**/* Edwards, C A
a .tf. wi/i*y kc(s

<CL-eC dd>. N. tfVlna. UJ, b' 
o - A', ywa®,-/ImA*4W

Edwards, Jas Mrs; 
Etheridge, L A Mrs; 
Etheridge, Mae Mrs;

*<re*s»</Hudson; Gary B.
.m>ce'< I rv in ; Idaouise Mrs. 

Johnson, Behgbie
£?,/¥, A ^•'tlohnaon, Smil 1 ey Mrs. 
o,Wir&*. Or,v jg l h i r ;  Mary Jane Mrs. 
£>,#; Jgnda; K E , „•

dopes; o l i i d  t.k Mrs. 
O'H.&Mt set K elly , Ulysee C.

—  Kendrick, w aiter 
M W j W U idd , Thelma Mrs,

<5, A/, tg.ri Kidd, w i, ,
M ansfield, Morgan Mrs.

ig^A.YTMartin, wm Mrs.
6m \-*»*** Matthews, c  t  J t ;
/?o». AkiiJLJMontgomery, Cohnie

d !A/- a/, Mddrd, Jimmy
o.V. ■**>.«. r. M u llls , Mary B. Mrs..rfae . - A * •Etheridge, T r e l l is  Mrs. 4 6 »;^«,^yH esbitt, .Jim

Fairman, Fred W 
Freeman, Abbott 
Freeman, E s te lle  Mrs

, . __Glaze, Owen R.
M-A' Haire, Bonnie N» 
fil. rf, H all, Annie Mae 

' H all, Joe Henry
, /X,-e.« ljr'ii'e“!*T — Hans le y . Jewel Mrs,

'd-V. Keif'll* )* '*!  Hawkins, Dock ■* 
Hawkins, Jas

O- n' , jLur'i//f'i*F»i_. ,̂4«nHawkins, L u c ille
, ------- ---- ^ Henry, Edgar

1n,«r v f-w «<  <^vr, H ilbum , W I Mrs 
H olt, Jim

J '- i -  Hudgins, K 0

View

S. ■ ft Hgwtdn, BPrV- , parr ,  1, A
h ; m- p a u lin , k  L

Peace, Janie Miss 
pow ell, Matthew 

n. v. (wtoV-r- Rent*, Annie Ruth 
,N*#> Revis, P olly . Ann 

d 'V .4 s » ^ r * J i l iy ' Rosa Mrs;
/t,W_ /ST, Rockwell; W illard J r . 

M X ,  Slocumb, Kenneth L.
--------- smith, Paul J.

MW. ^ J J .W .l'^ ^ ^ fi'H tk y , Addison 
crj-AJoolC. Taylor, Coy

i, h. riiliKKA'' Weathersby, Nelson Rev.
W illiams, Robt Lee

'h 'F h J  -OM ^UecCb /j d e

A jL^taA jLLeJLs lA isr-d

GEORGIA, BAKER COUNTY,

A?

f  
' 7

/
d

I, Leslie Bush, Clerk Of the Superior Court of Baker County, 
Georgia and Clerk of the Board of the Registrars do certify  that the above 
list represents the category of those persons Whose names are listed in the 
Newton, Georgia telephone book. r ...

A \
This 3 , 7  day of April. 19?Q.



19

CERTIFICATE 
GEORGIA, BAKER COUNTY.

I, Leslie Bush, Clerk Superior Court of Baker Coun­
ty, Georgia, do hereby certify that at the January 
Term, 1970, three cases were tried by juries.

1. State Highway Dept, of Ga. vs. Mrs. Eunice O. 
Rooks, et al Case No. 6

2. Henry Hall & L. W. Johnson vs. Orange Hawkins 
Case Nos. 3003 & 3004

3. State vs. Stephen Peace Case No. 1458

In Case No. 1 the trial jury was composed of 7 white 
and 5 black.

In Case No. 2 the trial jury was composed of 5 white 
and 7 black.

In case No. 3 the trial jury was composed of 6 white 
and 6 black.

WITNESS my hand and seal this 28 day of April, 
1970.

(Signed) LESLIE BUSH
CLERK OF SUPERIOR 
COURT, BAKER COUNTY, 
GEORGIA

(SEAL)



20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

GEORGIA, MITCHELL COUNTY.

I, Frank S. Twitty, of counsel for defendants, Jury 
Commissioners of Baker County, Georgia, do hereby 
certify that I have this day served plaintiffs and plain- 
tiff-intervenor with a copy of the within and foregoing 
Brief of Jury Commissioners of Baker County by mail­
ing the same to Mr. C. B. King, of counsel for the 
plaintiffs, at his correct address, Post Office Box 1024, 
Albany, Georgia, and to Mr. Walt Gorman, Attorney, 
Department of Justice, of counsel for the plaintiff-in- 
tervenor, United States of America, at his correct ad­
dress in Washington, D.C. 20530.

This the ___day of May, 1970.

Of Counsel for Defendants 
Jury Commissioners of 
Baker County



Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc, — New Orleans, La.