Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 3/8/1965

Swain v. Alabama

Citations

  • 380 U.S. 202
  • 85 S. Ct. 824
  • 13 L. Ed. 2d 759
  • 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1668

About this case

Swain v. Alabama

Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court regarding the legality of a struck jury .[1]

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Swain v. Alabama **

Contents

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Swain, a black man, was indicted and convicted of rape in the Circuit Court of Talladega County, Alabama , and sentenced to death by an all white jury. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, in part, on the ground that there were no black jurors. Of eligible jurors in the county, 26% were black, but panels since 1953 averaged 10% to 15% black jurors and no black juror had actually served on a petit jury since 1950.

In Swain's case, 8 of the 100 empaneled jurors were black, but all were "struck" through peremptory challenges by the prosecution.[2]

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, holding that neither the racial disparity in jury pools nor the decade-long absence of any black juror to serve at trial presented evidence sufficient to "make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment."

With regard to the historical under-representation of black jurors in Talladega County jury pools, the Majority held, "The overall percentage disparity has been small and reflects no studied attempt to include or exclude a specified number of Negros." Likewise, respecting the absence of black jurors at Swain's trial, the Court held that striking a juror solely on the basis of race did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because "the question a prosecutor or defense counsel must decide is not whether a juror of a particular race or nationality is in fact partial, but whether one from a different group is less likely to be." Swain also contended that the absence of any black juror to serve at trial since 1950 showed invidious discrimination. Rejecting the argument, the Majority said, "even if a State's systematic striking of Negroes in the selection of petit juries raises a prima facie case under the Fourteenth Amendment, we think it is readily apparent that the record in this case is not sufficient to demonstrate that the rule has been violated by the peremptory system as it operates in Talladega County." On these grounds, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, upholding Swain's death sentence.

Justice Goldberg authored a dissent which was joined by Justice Douglas and Chief Justice Warren.

Subsequent developments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Subsequent developments")

This case recognized the peremptory challenge as a valid legal practice so long as it was not used intentionally to exclude blacks from jury duties. The precedent set in this case was overturned in _Batson v. Kentucky _, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: See also")

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document .
  2. ↑ "Swain v. Alabama" . Oyez. Retrieved April 23, 2017.

Further reading

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Further reading")

  • Sommers, Samuel R.; Norton, Michael I. (2007). "Race-Based Judgments, Race-Neutral Justifications: Experimental Examination of Peremptory Use and the Batson Challenge Procedure". Law and Human Behavior. 31 (3): 261–273. doi :10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6 . PMID  17123158 . S2CID  13151133 .

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swain_v._Alabama&oldid=1351925883 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • 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
  • holding that a 10% actual disparity was inadequate to prove an equal protection violation
  • holding that in order to prove a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, a defendant must show that black jurors had been systematically excluded from juries over a long period of time
  • holding that in order to prove a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, a defendant must show that black jurors had been systematically excluded from juries over a long period of time
  • holding that in order to prove a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, a defendant must show that black jurors had been systematically excluded from juries over a long period of time
  • stating that erroneous combination of second and third steps of Batson which resulted in denial of valid peremptory challenge resulted in structural error and new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, Harlan, Goldberg, Black, Douglas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,279 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

72 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Swain v. Alabama

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.