Swain v. Alabama
- Decided
- March 8, 1965
- Docket
- 64
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,183 timesOverruled in part (verified)Overruled in part by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Batson v. Kentucky
What later courts said
- holding that "[t]he denial or impairment of the right [of peremptory challenge] is reversible error .... ” — Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. Lowder Realty Co. (2000)
- holding that in the equal protection context, a discrepancy of as much as ten percent, standing alone, cannot support a claim of underrepresentation of an identifiable group — Prince v. Parke (1995)
- holding that a 10% actual disparity was inadequate to prove an equal protection violation — United States v. Biaggi (1988)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, Robert Swain, a Negro, was indicted and convicted of rape in the Circuit Court of Talladega County, Alabama, and sentenced to death. His motions to quash the indictment, to strike the trial jury venire and to declare void the petit jury chosen in the case, all based on alleged invidious discrimination in the selection of jurors, were denied. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, 275 Ala. 508, 156 So. 2d 368, and we granted certiorari, 377 U. S. 915.
In support of his claims, petitioner invokes the constitutional principle announced in 1880 in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, where the Court struck down a state statute qualifying only white people for jury duty. Such a statute was held to contravene the central purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment: “exemption from unfriendly legislation against [Negroes] distinctively as colored, — exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy . . . .” 100 U. S., at 308. Although a Negro defendant is not entitled to a jury containing members of his race, a State’s pur [*204] poseful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565. This principle was further elaborated in Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 447, where, in respect to exclusion from grand juries, the Court said:
Statutes cited
Cite this
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.