Tollett v. Henderson
- Decided
- April 17, 1973
- Docket
- 72-95
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,425 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a counseled guilty plea barred a state prisoner’s claim of racial discrimination in the selection of the indict ing grand jury — Merrill E. Fields v. Attorney General of the State of Maryland Kenneth E. Taylor, Warden (1992)
- holding that a guilty plea precludes defendant’s challenge to the exclusion of African-Americans from the grand jury — United States v. Nicholas Panarella, Jr. (2002)
- holding that state prisoner’s guilty plea foreclosed challenge to racial discrimination in grand jury selection — Slavek v. Hinkle (2005)
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
[*259] Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Twenty-five years ago respondent was indicted for the crime of first-degree murder by a grand jury in Davidson County, Tennessee. On the advice of counsel, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of 99 years in prison. Many years later he sought habeas corpus in both state and federal courts. In one petition in United States District Court, he contended that a confession he had given to the police had been coerced, and that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. The District Court considered these claims and decided them adversely to respondent, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed without opinion, and this Court denied certiorari. Henderson v. Henderson, 391 U. S. 927 (1968). Respondent then sought state habeas corpus, alleging for the first time that he was deprived of his constitutional right because Negroes had been excluded from the grand jury which indicted him in 1948. After a series of proceedings in the Tennessee trial and appellate courts, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately concluded that respondent had waived his claim by failure to raise it before pleading to the indictment, and by pleading guilty.
Respondent then filed in the United States District Court the petition for habeas corpus which commenced the present litigation, asserting the denial of his constitutional right by reason of the systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand jury service. Petitioner, in effect, conceded such systematic exclusion to have existed, and the District Court so found. The issue upon which the District Court and the Court of Appeals focused was whether respondent’s failure to object to the indictment within the time provided by Tennessee law constituted [*260] a waiver of his Fourteenth Amendment right to be indicted by a constitutionally selected grand jury.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973)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.