Jury Discrimination Case Reaches Supreme Court Background

    PressRelease 8 Se Se oe 

SEPTEMBER 24, 1971 

JURY DISCRIMINATION CASE REACHES SUPREME COURT 

BACKGROUND 

= CLAUDE ALEXANDER v. STATE OF LOUISIANA 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) 

has filed a brief (on June 9, 1971) in U.S. Supreme Court in 

a case charging that Louisiana Laws governing the jury selection 

Process are unconstitutional because they permit the systematic 

exclusion of black men and all women from jury duty. 

The case, known as Claude Alexander v. the State of Louisiana, 

came to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, 

where the conviction and sentence of the black youth, who received 

life imprisonment for the ‘rape of a white woman, was upheld. 

Before going to trial, Alexander filed motions to quash his in- 

dictment, handed down by an all-white male grand jury, on the 

grounds that it was invalid and illegal because black men and all 

women were systematically excluded from serving. These motions 

were denied in each state court. Errors in Alexander's trial 

were also made, LDF contends, when a confession, allegedly given 

to police by Alexander, but unsigned by the defendant, was used 

at his trial to contradict his direct testimony. LDF claims that 

the defendant was not advised of his right to counsel before 

police took his statement, nor did Alexander affirmatively waive 

his right. Alexander, furthermore, refused to sign the "confession," 

and claims now that police twisted his statement into an admission 

(More) 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 

William T. Coleman, Jr. - President Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 



BACKGROUND - JURY CASE PAGE 2 

of guilt. State courts also denied the defendant's motion to 

quash the introduction of such evidence. 

If the case is successful, it could hasten the end to 

blanket female exemption from jury service still practiced in 

several states. It could also strengthen present laws forbidding 

the exclusion of blacks from juries if the high court outlaws the 

use of racial designations on jury lists. 

The process which produced a list of some 13,000 Lafayette 

Parish prospective jurors and then reduced it to the 12 white male 

grand jurors who indicted Alexander is described in the LDF brief 

as follows: 

‘as According to the 1960 U.S. Census, some 44,986 persons, 

over the age of 21, reside in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. 

Of these, 23,250 or 51.7% are women. The male population 

of the Parish is 21,635, of which 4,405 or 20.27% are 

black. 

* Questionnaires, designed to determine eligibility for 

jury duty, were sent by the Lafayette Parish jury com- 

mission to every eighth person on a list the commission 

compiled from various sources (e.g. telephone directory, 

voter registration list, etc.) If the eighth person was 

a man exempt from service by virtue of his profession, 

or any woman, his or her name was passed over and the 

next eligible person was sent the questionnaire. 

* Approximately 13,000 male residents received these 

questionnaires and a total of 7,374 responses, 1,015 

or 13.76% of them from blacks, came back to the commission. 

On all but 183 of these, respondents completed the 

question as to their race. 

a To eliminate those ineligible to serve, the jury com- 

mission purportedly studied the questionnaires and came 

(More) 



BACKGROUND - J 

Ip with a E25 persons who met the requirements 

istics are available as to the 

t. However, it is known that 

the jury commission, in approving each prospective 

juror, atta da card to his questionnaire designating, 

among other things, the race of that person. Then, a 

slip of paper, designating only name and address, was 

attached to the card and questionnaire, 

Next, the jury commission claims, 400 persons were 

picked “at random" from the 2,000 prospective jurors 

and only their slips of paper were placed in the venire 

box from which the names of Alexander's grand jury were 

chosen. At this point, the venire box contained the 

names of no women and only 27 black men. 

¥ Finally, 20 names were pulled from the venire box, 

including the name of one black man. When the final 

12 were chosen from the 20, no black man was among them. 

The LDF argument notes that if the 400 prospective jurors 

were truly representative of the male population of Lafayette 

County (the jury commission had an affirmative duty to utilize 

methods that would have produced a truly representative jury role) 

the venire box would have contained the mMames of some 81 black men. 

Even a 13.76% figure for the venire would have produced 55 blacks 

and 345 whites. Yet blacks made up only 27 or 6.75% of the 

venire of 400. Even the most conservative odds against such a 

poor random showing, LDF contends, are a highly improbable one in 

20,000. LDF also places great weight on the fact that commissioners, 

who claim that racial information was requested solely for "“iden- 

tification" purposes, had ample opportunity to discriminate 

against blacks. 

(More) 



BACKGROUND - JURY CASE PAGE 4 

On the question of female exclusion, LDF is hopeful that 

the Supreme Court will take a fresh look at the laws which 

place the burden on women to step forward if they desire jury 

duty. This, LDF claims, assumes that all women of all ages 

have family responsibilities and would suffer hardship were they 

called to serve. Since the basic premise is false, the law which 

stems from it is excessive. And when it workd to exclude all 

women, as it did in Lafayette Parish, it is unconstitutional as 

well. 

Although in a 1961 case, Hoyt v. Florida, the Supreme Court 

upheld a Florida statute essentially the same as the Louisiana 

law, LDF believes there is a major difference: Florida women 

were being openly encouraged to volunteer for jury duty, while 

the jury commission in Lafayette Parish took special pains to 

exclude all women from the jury roles. 

Finally, LDF would like the Supreme Court to forbid the use 

of Alexander's alleged confession to contradict his direct testi- 

mony . 

Although past Supreme Court decisions have upheld the 

legality of using evidence, including confessions, obtained 

illegally, for the sole purpose of impeaching a defendant's 

direct testimony on the witness stand, these cases dealt with 

evidence or confessions that were reliable beyond any doubt. In 

this case, however, Alexander's alleged confession was made 

without the assistance of a stenographer or the use of a tape- 

recorder. It was given in the presence of police officers only, 

one of whom took notes and typed the confession that Alexander 

refused to sign. Thus, LDF claims, where doubts exist as to the 

accuracy of such illegally-obtained evidence, it must not be used 

to impeach a defendant's testimony. 

=230= 

For further information contact: Sandy O'Gorman 212-586-8397