1. Castaneda v. Partida (1977)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.”

7. Precedent Partida 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Governing Majority Argument Governing 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.

12. 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.

13. Data Considered by the Court YearAvg. Number of People% Spanish Surname 19621637.5% 19631635.9% 19641629.7% 19651630.9% 19662037.5% 19672035.8% 19682033% 19692050% 19702047% 19712052.5% Over 11 years 339 people were spanish surnamed out of 870 on grand juries. Totalling 39% of all grand jurors.

14. 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%

15. 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

16. 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

17. -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