## Facts

- Clarence Norris, a Black teenager, was indicted in Jackson County, Alabama, for rape and was convicted and sentenced to death.
- After earlier reversals in related proceedings, Norris was retried in Morgan County following a change of venue.
- Before trial, Norris moved to quash (1) the Jackson County indictment and (2) the Morgan County trial venire, alleging long-standing exclusion of qualified Black citizens from jury service in both counties solely because of race.
- The trial court heard evidence and denied both motions; Norris was convicted and again sentenced to death.
- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting the federal claim of unconstitutional jury exclusion.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether systematic and arbitrary exclusion of Black citizens from the grand jury that indicted Norris and the petit jury that tried him, solely because of race, denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming Norris’s conviction.
- The Court held that excluding all Black citizens from grand or petit juries through systematic and arbitrary race-based practices violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court independently examined the evidentiary record because the state court’s federal constitutional conclusion depended on contested factual determinations.
- The Court found the evidence showed a substantial Black population and a long period of near-total absence of Black jurors, despite the existence of qualified Black citizens.
- The Court concluded the State failed to rebut the inference of intentional racial exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Equal protection is denied when a State, through its officials or procedures, excludes qualified persons from jury service solely because of race or color.
- The prohibition applies to both grand juries (indictment) and petit juries (trial).
- Facial neutrality in jury-selection statutes does not cure unconstitutional discrimination if the system is administered to produce systematic racial exclusion.
- A defendant may establish a prima facie case of jury discrimination by showing a substantial racial group in the community and its persistent absence or extreme underrepresentation on juries over time; the burden then shifts to the State to provide a credible nonracial explanation.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside Norris’s conviction because the record showed long-standing, race-based exclusion of Black citizens from jury lists in the counties involved, and such discrimination in selecting grand or petit juries violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.


Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935)