# Sanders v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · September 18, 1989 · 300 Ark. 25

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681236

## Case

- **Full name:** Royse Nathaniel SANDERS, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 18, 1989
- **Citations:** 300 Ark. 25; 776 S.W.2d 334; 1989 Ark. LEXIS 403
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Purtle
- **Judges:** Glaze, Purtle
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681236

## Opinion text

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. I concur only because I do not have time to research this issue in depth. There is something seriously amiss in the jury selection process when not one black person out of a panel of 300 prospective jurors is chosen. Clearly, a prima facie case of discrimination is established under these circumstances. The state should be charged with proving the validity of the panel. We have been furnished no figures reflecting the number of blacks residing in Garland County, although such figures are available from the Census Bureau and other compilations.
I am aware of the opinion of this court in Thomas v. State, 289 Ark. 72 , 709 S.W.2d 83 (1986), and various United States Supreme Court opinions including Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979). Blacks are a distinctive group and are not represented at all on this panel of 300 venires. The state should be required to show some reason for the absence of this distinctive group. A list of all licensed drivers in the county might be more representative than the voter registration list. People who pay personal and real property taxes are listed in each county and could be a source from which jurors are selected. Any system obtaining the result in this case certainly needs further examination.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681236. Public record. Not legal advice.