finding that racial discrimination in selection of a grand jury foreperson violates the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, and stating that "Article I, section 26 (of the North Carolina Constitution) does more than protect individuals from unequal treatment"
How later courts described this case
- finding that racial discrimination in selection of a grand jury foreperson violates the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, and stating that "Article I, section 26 (of the North Carolina Constitution) does more than protect individuals from unequal treatment"
- invoking Equal Protection Clause to set aside conviction based on racial discrimination in grand jury selection but allowing the State to reindict defendant through nondiscriminatory procedures
- “As the titular head of the grand jury, the foreman is first among equals, both in the eyes of his fellow jurors and in the eyes of the public.”
- “[e]xclusion of a racial group from jury service . . . entangles the courts in a web of prejudice and stigmatization”; selection of grand jury foreperson therefore must be based on racially neutral criteria.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice MEYER
concurring in result.
I concur in section III of the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the equal protection guarantees of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman and thus a remand of this case for findings is dictated. The United States Constitution dictates the minimum equal protection rights of individuals in the sense that an individual’s equal protection rights may be greater under a state constitution, but his rights under the federal constitution may not be diminished thereby. Thus, I find it unnecessary and unwise to proceed to any analysis of rights under the state constitution.