Castaneda v. Partida (1977)

Background- Defendant Rodrigo Partida indicted by grand jury

of Hidalgo County District Court for burglary/intent to rape

- Sentenced to 8 years- Defendant appealed raising statistics: 79.1% of

Hidalgo residents had Spanish surnames- However, from 1962-72: 39% of grand

jurors had Spanish surnames

Partida’s Claim- Petition for Habeas Corpus

- Denial of due process and equal protection (14th amendment)

- Because of under-representation of Mexican-Americans on grand jury

Key Man System -In this case, the Court considered a jury selection process called “The Key Man” system.

-The Key Man system uses state jury selection commissioners to find jurors from the “community at large.” -This process has been notoriously critiqued for exacerbating partiality, and limiting minority represenation on juries.

Summary of Lower Court Proceedings- TX Court: individuals won’t discriminate against

members of their own race- TX Court: Partida didn’t account for juror standards- Fed. Dist. Court: the main evidence presented against

Partida was the testimony of the judge who chose the jury selection commissioners- There was no testimony from the commissioners

themselves- Court questioned validity of Partida’s statistics

Jurisdiction and Question Before the US Supreme Court

- Writ of certiorari- Supreme Court is reviewing Appeals

Court Decision in favor Partida:“Whether the existence of a governing majority, in itself, can rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in grand jury selection, and, if not, whether the State otherwise met its burden of proof.”

PrecedentPartida v. State- A similar case concerning Mexican-American representation in juries. The Court ruled that discrimination could not exist, noting the large number Mexican-American of governmental officials, since “Mexican-Americans could not discriminate against their own kind.” Arlington Heights - "[s]ometimes a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race, emerges from the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face." This case talks about how disparate impact can still qualify as discriminatory. The case also lowered the standard for proving discriminatory intent.

Turner v. Fouche Precedent - There was precedent for determining disparity in

racial underrepresentation on grand juries- Turner v. Fouche (60% Black pop., 37% on grand

jury) considered “significant”- This was used as a comparison to determine

threshold of a prima facie case- In this comparison court agreed there was

enough evidence for a prima facie case

An Important Note on the Burden of Proof- Once a defendant shows substantial

underrepresentation of his group, he has made a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose

- The burden shifts to the other party to rebut that case

Now Burden of Proof is Shifted to Hidalgo County- Hidalgo failed to present testimony from

commissioners who chose jurors, which made any rebuttal weak

- The county also failed to show that a significant number of Mexican-Americans were not legal citizens, or did not meet standards to be a grand juror

- Hidalgo County did not explain statistical disparities

Governing Majority ArgumentGoverning Majority: This argument offers that if a minority is well represented in the government, discrimination, especially among juries cannot be taking place.

The Court strikes down this argument, pointing out that:1) People in one definable group can still discriminate against each

other.2) Even if a minority is well represented in government, the minority

is not well represented on the jury in this case, making the governing majority argument irrelevant.

3) There isn’t sufficient evidence that Mexican-Americans actually enjoyed a governing majority status.

Easily Identifiable Class-Once a group has proven a statistical/numerical inequity, there is a needed discussion of intent. The state can try, as it did, to prove that a minority’s status is not “easily identifiable,” to demonstrate that there was no way to discriminate. -The Court rejects this argument, positing that Mexican-American surnames are easily identifiable.

Data Considered by the CourtYear Avg. Number of People % Spanish Surname

1962 16 37.5%

1963 16 35.9%

1964 16 29.7%

1965 16 30.9%

1966 20 37.5%

1967 20 35.8%

1968 20 33%

1969 20 50%

1970 20 47%

1971 20 52.5%

Over 11 years 339 people were spanish surnamed out of 870 on grand juries. Totalling 39% of all grand jurors.

Data in Relation to Literacy Argument- Considering literacy requirement to

be a juror- With Census figures, Court still found

that 65% of people with Spanish-surnames had some schooling

- Still significant vs. 39%

Statistical Argument Employed- If jurors were drawn randomly, # of

Mexican-Americans in the sample can be modeled in a binomial distribution

- Total grand jury pop. = 870- 870 x .791 = 688 (expected)- Observed = 339

Court’s Use of S.D. - Calculated S.D. of 12

- There is a difference between E and O of 29 standard deviations

- The likelihood of this is less than 1 in 10^140

- U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appeals Court in favor of Partida- Struck down governing majority

argument- Confirmed Hidalgo did not present

compelling evidence to refute the data

Final Decision