Petition — Francois v. Florida

RECEIVED

APR 28 1982

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

GDi-tle9Gtt”~*”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1981

NO.

MARVIN FRANCOIS,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF FLORIDA

ED

BENNETT H. BRUMMER

Public Defender

Eleventh Judicial Circuit

of Florida

1351 N.W. 12th Street

Miami, Florida 33125

RORY S. STEIN

Assistant Public Defender

Counsel for Petitioner

tw.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

I

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA'S

ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE PETITIONER'S

MERITORIOUS EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM BASED ON

UNDERREPRESENTATION OF HIS RACE ON DADE

COUNTY'S GRAND JURIES IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT

WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND PRESENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OF VITAL AND

CONTINUING IMPORTANCE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM?

If

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA'S

ARBITRARY IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN

THIS CASE WITHOUT REMAND FOR RFSENTENCING BY

THE TRIAL COURT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH

DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF

APPEALS AND CONCERNS A CONSTITUTIONAL

QUESTION OF VITAL IMPORTANCE PRESENTLY BEING

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN STEPHENS V. ZANT,

631 3.08 = 967 (Sth. Ch, - 1. Ce.

GRANTED _—_siU«S.. _,102 S.ct. 90 (1981)?

INDEX

Opinion Below

Jurisdiction

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

Statement of the Case

Argument I - Reason For Granting The Writ

Argument II - Reason For Granting The Writ

Conclusion

TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASES.

ALEXANDER v. LOUISTANA

405 U.S. 625 (1972)

ALVORD v. STATE

322 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1975)

BROWN v. WAINWRIGHT

392 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)

CASTENEDA v. PARTIDA

430 U.S. 482 (1977)

COLEMAN v. ALABAMA

377 U.S. 129 (1964)

DAVIS v. UNITED STATES

4] U.S. 233 (1973)

DAVIS v. WECHSLER

263 U.S. 143 (1923)

DIXON v. STATE

283 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973)

DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA

372 U.S. 353 (1963)

ENGLE v. ISAAC

U.S. ss (Case No, 80-1430,

Op. filed 4/5/82)

FRANCIS v. HENDERSON

425 U.S. 536 (1976)

GODFREY v. GEORGIA

am * Ba oiseoo Ne 100 S.ct. 1759 (1980)

GREGG v. GEORGIA

428 U.S. 153 (1976)

HENRY v. WAINWRIGHT

661 F.2d 56 (Sth Cir. 1981)

HERNANDEZ v. TEXAS

347 U.S. 475 (1954)

JONES v. GEORGIA

—— ee

369 U.S. 24 (1967)

MIKENAS v. STATE

367 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1978)

o£¢—

~~ Nee

ao

13

12, 15

11

PROFFITT v, FLORIDA

428 U.S. 242 (1976)

PROVENCE v. STATE

337 So.2d 763 (Fla. 1976)

cert. denied 431 U.S. 969 (1977)

STEPHENS v. ZANT

631 F.2d (Sth Cir. 1980)

cert. granted U.S. . 102 S.Ct.

STRAUDER v. WEST VIRGINIA

100 U.S. 303 (1880)

SWAIN v. ALABAMA

780 U.S. 202 (1965)

TAYLOR v. LOUISIANA

419 U.S. 522 (1975)

TURNER v. FOUCHE

796 U.S. 346 (1970)

WAINWRIGHT v. SYKES

433 U.S. 72 (1977)

WASHINGTON v. DAVIS

$26 U.S. 229 (1976)

LLIAMS v. GEORGIA

9 U.S. 375 (1955)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Eighth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment

UNITED STATES CODE

Volume 28, §1257(3)

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Article I, Section 15

FLORIDA STATUTES

§921.141(3)

§921.141(5)

LAWS OF FLORIDA

Section 57-550

Section 70-1000

Section 78-455

FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

§3.190 -

§3.190(d)

D. KAIRYS, JURY REPRESENTATIVES: A MANDATE FOR

SOURCE LISTS, CAL.LAW REV. VOL. 65, 776, 790

-iii-

90 (1981)

10, 12

— ©

oOo.

2

-

\

wUnnN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1981

NO.

MARVIN FRANCOIS,

Petitioner,

-yvs-

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA |

Petitioner, MARVIN FRANCOIS, respectfully urges that a writ

of certiorari issue to review the judgment and opinion of the

Supreme Court of Florida rendered on January 28, 1982.

OPINION BELOW

The full opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida is attached

as part of Petitioner's Appendix. (App. 1-8). The reported

opinion appears at 407 So.2d 885.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§1257(3), to review the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court

of Florida. That judgment and opinion was entered on October 15,

1981. (App. 1-8). A timely petition for rehearing was denied on

January 28, 1982. (App. 1). An order extending the time for the

filing of this Petition up to and including April 28, 1982, was

entered by the Honorable Justice Powell on March 22, 1982.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

— eee

1. This case involves the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the Constitution of the United States.

2. This case also involves the provisions of Florida law

set forth in the Appendix.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

.

Petitioner Francois was convicted on six counts of first-

degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder and

three counts of robbery in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh

Judicial Circuit of Florida. (App. 3). As a result of his

conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to death. (App. 3).

Prior to his trial, the Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss

the indictment! which charged him with the aforementioned

offenses. (App. 9-17). In his motion, the Petitioner alleged

that he had been denied equal protection and due process of law

because the grand jury that had indicted him was illegally

constituted. (App. 10, 11). Specifically, the Petitioner alleged

that there had been a_ substantial disparity between the

percentage of blacks? and Hispanics in Dade County's eligible

population and the percentage cf these groups on venires selected

for grand jury service, for the five year period preceding the

return of the challenged indictment. (App. 10, 11). In support

of his motion, the petitioner attached exhibits and affidavits

which included statistical data reflecting the racial composition

(percentage of blacks and latins) of Pade County’s general

population, registered voters, grand jury master list? and actual

grand juries. (App. 18-96). Petitioner's statistical proffer

demonstrated an average actual disparity of 9.38% among blacks

1 The Constitution of the State of Florida requires that

offenses which are punishable by death shall be prosecuted by

indictment. Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 15.

. Petitioner Francois is black.

3 The grand jury master lists were not made available to the

petitioner although they were requested from the Clerk of the

Circuit Court prior to trial. (App. 20). Additionally, the

petitioner moved for disclosure of the master lists as part of

his motion to dismiss. (App. 9-11). As a result of the trial

court's denial of his motion to dismiss, the master lists were

never provided to Petitioner. The master list percentage in

petitioner's exhibits were estimated after taking into account

the actual grand jury percentages and Florida's statutory

requirement that the actual grand jury be randomly selected from

the grand jury master list. Chapter 57-550 and Chapter 70-1000,

Laws of Florida.

and 20.6% among Latins, when comparison is made of the average

eligible population and master rist4 percentage for each group.

(App. 19). Utilizing the Comparative Disparity Standard”, these

figures establish that blacks and latins were underrepresented on

the’ grand juries of Dade County by 68.478 and 70.81%,

respectively.

On April 17, 1981, the trial court denied the Petitioner's

motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, finding that

the grand jury was legally constituted. (App. 136). At the

conclusion of the petitioner's trial and after an advisory

sentence of death was received from the jury, the trial court,

finding that there were seven aggravating circumstances® and no

mitigating circumstances sustained by the evidence, imposed the

sentence of death. (App. 3, 6).

On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida refused to

review the grand jury challenge raised by the petitioner in the

fower court. Although finding that the petitioner's motion had

been timely filed, the Supreme Court of Florida held that

petitioner had waived his right to appeal the trial court's

denial of his motion because defense counsel, as a defense tactic

to upset the petitioner's convictions on appeal, waited until the

day of trial to argue his motion to dismiss. (App. 5).

On review of petitioner's sentence, the Supreme Court of

Florida held that the trial court had erred in finding three of

the seven aggravating circumstances upon which the petitioner's

death sentence was based. (App. 6, 7). kelying on the lack of

mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court of Florida

nevertheless upheld the petitioner's death sentence, (App. 7).

4 Since the percentage of blacks ectually serving on grand

juries was slightly higher than the percentage estimated for the

master list, 4.32% as against 4.0%, the larger figure will be

used in this Petition for analysis purposes. The estimated

percentage of Latins on the master list, 3.08 was slightly

greater then the percentage of Latins actually serving, 2.15%.

Again, the greater figure will be used in this Petition for the

purposes of analysis.

5 See D. Kairys, Jury Representativeness: A Mandate fer

Multiple Source Lists, Cal.Law Rev. Vol. 65, 776, 790.

6 section 921.141(5), Florida Statutes.

=3<

Due to the clear conflict among the decisional law of this

Court, the United States Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court

of Florida's decision in the instant case, and due to the

important questions of federal constitutional law herein raised,

this petition for writ of certiorari is hereby presented pursuant

to Rule 17 of this Court.

ARGUMENT

I

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA'S ARBITRARY

REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE PETITIONER'S

MERITORIOUS FQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM BASED

ON UNDERREPRESENTATION OF HIS RACE ON

DADE COUNTY'S GRAND JURIES IS IN DIRECT

CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND

PRESENTS CONSTITUTIONAL QUZSTIONS OF

VITAL AND CONTINUING IMPORTANCE TO THE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Since 1880, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment has precluded conviction of an accused upon an

indictment which was returned by a grand jury from which members

of the accused's race were excluded solely because of their

race. Strauder _v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310 (1880).

Subsequent decisions of this Court have held that substantial

underrepresentation of any recognizable class violates equal

protection where there had been an intent to discriminate.

Casteneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 493 (1917); Swain v. Alabama,

380 U.S. 202 (1965). Intent to discriminate is presumptively

proved by -ctatistical evidence which demonstrates that over a

period of time the degree of underrepresentation has been

substantial. Casteneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. at 494; Washington

v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241 (1976); Alexander v. Louisiana, 405

U.S. 625, 630-31 (1972). Furthermore, proof that the procedure

which selected the grand jurors is “susceptible of abuse or is

not racially neutral supports the presumption of [intentional]

discrimination raised by the statistical showing." Casteneda v.

Partida, 430 U.S. at 494 (citations omitted).

Standing to assert an equal protection claim of

underrepresentation is achieved when the accused demonstrates

that he is a member of “recognizable, distinct class, singled out

for different treatment under laws, as written or applied.”

Casteneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. at 494. Blacks, latins and women

have been judicially recognized as distinct classes to which

relief may be granted. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. at

309 (blacks); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 480 (1954)

(latins); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 537 (1975) (women).

The burden of proving substantial underrepresentation rests

with the accused. Casteneda_ v. Partida, 430 U.S. at 494.

However, | *"lo)}nce the defendant has shown substantial

underrepresentation of his group, he had made out a prima facie

case of discriminatory purpose, and the burden then shifts to the

State to rebut that case." Casteneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. at

Applying these principles to this case, the record

demonstrates that the indictment should have been dismissed or,

in the alternative, an evidentiary hearing should have been held

because of the substantial underrepresentation of blacks on the

venire from which the grand jury had been selected and because

the system which produced this result had, over a significant

period of time, repeated this pattern of underrepresentation.

See, Coleman v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 129 (1964).

The grand jury which indicted the Petitioner was randomly

selected from a pool of five hundred individuals personally

chosen by Dade County's circuit jidges. (App. 15, 16, 139-146).

Chapter 57-550 and Chapter 70-1000, Laws of Florida.’ If blacks

were properly represented among the individuals seiected by the

circuit judges for grand jury service, the random selection

process required by Florida law would assure that blacks would be

properly represented on Dade County's grand juries. Casteneda v.

Partida, 430 U.S. at 496, footnote 17. An examination of the

Statistics proffered reveals that blacks were severely

underrepresented on Dade County's grand juries for a period of

7 This procedure for selection of grand jurors was abandoned in

May, 1978, in favor of a computer selection method. Chapter 78-

455, Laws of Florida.

five years. (App. 19). The only explanation for the large

disparity between the average percentage of blacks serving on

grand juries and the percentage of blacks in the general

population is that the judges had failed to choose sufficient

numbers of blacks for the pool of potential grand jurors. (App.

21).

In Casteneda v. Partida, supra, this Court exhaustively

analyzed the equal protection problems arising from state laws

which direct officials to personally, rather than randomly selec’

individuals for grand jury service. The evidence in Casteneda

showed that in a county which was 79.1% Mexican-American, only

39% of the individuals summoned for grand jury service were of

such descent. Applying statistical analysis, this Court

concluded that this result could not have been achieved by random

causes. Where a selection process results in underrepresentation

which cannot be explained by random causes, this Court held that

presumptive proof of substantial underrepresentation and a

discriminatory purpose had been established. Casteneda_ v.

Partida, 430 U.S. at 495-96.

The Petitioner, a black male, clearly has standing to

challenge black underrepresentation. Alexander v. Louisiana,

supra. Petitioner's statistical data demonstrated an absolute

differcstial of 10.88% (15.2-4.32) between the average percentage

of blacks in the general popu lation®

and the average percentage

of blacks randomly selected for grand jury service. (App. 19).

Application of the Comparative Disparity Standard reveals that

blacks were underrepresented on Dade County's grand juries by

70.7289. (App. 19). This figure of 70.72% underrepresertation

indicates that a black has a 70.72% less chance of being included

on a grand jury than a non-black. The probability of by chance

selecting only eight blacks for grand jury service over a four-

—_—- —-——

8 Application of average eligible population percentages rather

then general population percentages as advocated by Cheif Justice

Burger in his dissent in Casteneda, yields the following

disparity, 9.38%,and consequent underrepresentation of 68.47%.

9 ‘This figure is derived from the foilowing equation: 15.2-

4.32 x 100215.2 = 70.728.

year “period was determined to be less then one in one thousand.

(App. 21).

The petitioner's statistical proffer was sufficient to

establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the process by

whiéh Dade County's grand juries were selected. Casteneda v.

Partida, 430 U.S. at 494-5; Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. at

631-2. The trial court, however, without the benefit of an

evidentiary hearing as requested by petitioner, denied the

petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment finding that the

grand jury had been lawfully constituted. {App. 136). The trial

Alexander v. Louisiana, supra; Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346

(1970); Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24 (1967).

The Supreme Court of Florida's refusal to consider the

petitioner's grand jury challenge on direct appeal supports the

necessity for the issuance of the Writ in this cause. The

Supreme Court of Florida, relying on this Court's decisions in

Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976) and Davis v. United

States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973), held that the petitioner had waived

his right to appeai because the Court perceived that defense

counsel had engaged in improper tactics by requesting a hearing

on his motion to dismiss on the day of trial. (App. 5). The

Supreme Court of Florida opined that defense counsel's delaying

tactics were directed at upsetting his conviction on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Florida's conclusion that the

petitioner had waived his right to appeal the denial of his grand

jury challenge was not based on any concept of waiver known to

Florida’s statutes or rules of procedure. In fact, the Supreme

was timely made and was otherwise in accordance with Florida Rule

——— —

10 Due to the nature of the triai court's ruling, the

respondent placed no evidence in the record rebutting, as they

must, the petitioner's prima facie showing. Alexander v.

Lovisiana, 405 U.S. at 632; Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 361

(1970). In Florida courts, factual matters alleged in motions to

dismiss are deemed when not specifically denied by the state.

Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d).

of Criminal Procedure 3.190,22 the rule governing motions to

Gismiss in the State of Florida. The trial court, perceiving no

waiver by petitioner's counsel, ruled on the merits of

petitioner's challenge, albeit without an evidentiary hearing.

(App. 136). The Supreme Court of Florida, reading between the

lines of the transcripts of the pre-trial hearings, perceived

improper motives that the trial court had not. !? (App. 5). The

Supreme Court of Florida's reliance on Francis v. Henderson,

supra, and United States v. Davis, supra, for its refusal to

review petitioner's claim is misplaced.

In Francis v. Henderson, supra, a state prisoner sought

federal habeas corpus relief grounded upon a claim that blacks

had been excluded from the grand jury that had indicted him, The

prisoner, Francis, had not raised his grand jury challenge at the

time of trial, as was required by Louisiana law, Francis did not

appeal his conviction. Instead, Francis sought federal habeas

corpus relief six year after his trial. This Court held that

Francis should be denied federal habeas corpus relief and that

effect be given to the waiver provisions of Louisiana law unless

Francis could demonstrate cause for his waiver and actual

prejudice resulting from the claimed error.

This Court has reaffirmed the principles of Francis v.

Henderson, supra in Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) and

more recently in Engle v. Isaac, _U.S. (Case No. 80-1430,

Op. filed 4/5/82). These cases now clearly stand for the

_—_—_ -———- SS —_—— — —_

11 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190 requires that

motions to dismiss be filed at or before arraignment unless the

court grants a defendant additional time. The Supreme Court of

Plorida correctly determined that the petitioner timély filed his

petition within the time as extended by the Court, thereby

avoiding the waiver provision of subsection (c) of the rule. The

rule otherwise anticipates only that the motion be heard prior to

triai.

12 Chief Justice Sundberg in his dissenting opinion to the

majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida found no

improper motives in the actions of petitioner's counsel. Justice

Sundberg instead found that counsel originally attempted to defer

consideration of his grand jury claim in order to prepare for

that as well as the other numerous issues in petitioner's complex

trial. (App. 7, 8). Justice Sundberg concluded that petitioner's

statistical proffer had established a prima facie case of an

illegally composed grand jury and was entitled to an evidentiary

hearing. (App. 8).

proposition that a state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas

relief, absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice, when a

procedural default barring state litigation of a constitutional

Claim has occurred. Engle v. State, supra.

.

It is likewise clear that Francis v. Henderson, supra, and

its progeny do not support a state court's refusal to review a

constitutional claim where there has been no state precedural

Gefault by a state prisoner. In this case, the petitioner

complied with Florida's procedural requirements with regard to

his grand jury challenge. (App. 4, 5, 147-149). The trial court

below had an opportunity to and did rule on the merits of the

petitioner's claim. (App. 136). These factors distinguished this

case from the factual patterns present in Francis v. Henderson,

supra, Wainwright v. Sykes, supra and Engle v. Isaac, supra. The

actions of petitioner's trial counsel, which were consistent with

the requirements of Florida law, served as no impediment to

review by the Florida Supreme Court and clearly do not serve as a

bar to review by this Court. The Supreme Court of Florida's

perception of improper motives, a perception which is unsupported

by the record and plainly inconsistent with petitioner's

compliance with Florida procedural rules, is not an "independent

and adequate state procedural ground" which could prevent review

by this Court. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. at 86, 87.

Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375 (1955) (discretionary decision

by State Supreme Court to refuse to hear petitioner's

constitutional claim reviewable by this Court); Davis v.

Wechsler, 263 U.S. 143 (1923).

The Supreme Court of Fiorida‘’s arbitrary refusal to review

petitioner's grand jury attack sharply conflicts with the due

process requirements that a full and fair resolution of the

merits be afforded to persons convicted of crimes on their "one

and only appeal*®. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 357

(1963). It has long been established that the requirements of

due process of law fully apply to the appellate process:

+ « « «{T)he proceedings in the appellate

tribunal are to be regarded as part of

the process of law under which [fa

convicted person] is held in custody, and

~~

to be considered in determining any

question of alleged deprivation of his

life or liberty contrary to the 14th

Amendment. Frank v. Magnum, 237 U.S. 309,

327 (1915).

white this Court has never held that the States are required to

establish appellate review procedures ... .

- « »« It is now fundamental that, once

established, these avenues must be kept

free of unreasonable distinctions that

can only impede open and equal access to

the Court. Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S.

305 (1966) (citations omitted).

The Supreme Court of Florida's arbitrary refusal to review

the petitioner's constitutional claim, coupled with the trial

court's refusal to afford petitioner an evidentiary ‘earing on

his motion to dismiss, violates the underpinnings

v. Isaac, supra and Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, decisions as well

as fundamental due process concepts of fairness. Intervention by

this Court is required to correct the Supreme Court of Florida's

erroneous and expansive interpretation of this Court's decision

in Francis v. Henderson, supra, and to provide the petitioner

with an opportunity to be fully and fairly heard = on his

meritorious equal protection claim derived from the illegally

composed grand jury that indicted petitioner.

1]

REASONS FOR GRANTING THF WRIT

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA'S ARBITRARY

IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THIS

CASE WITHOUT REMAND FOR RESENTENCING BY THE

TRIAL COURT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH

DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF

APPEALS AND CONCERNS A CONSTITUTIONAL

QUESTION OF VITAL IMPORTANCE PRESENTLY

BEING CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN STEPHENS

V. ZANT, 631 P.2d 397 (Sth Cir. 1980) CERT.

GRANTED U.S. _,_-:102 S.Ct. 90 (1981).

In Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976), this Court

upheld the constitutionality of Florida's death-sentencing

procedures, relying on the Supreme Court of Florida's reviewing

role as a safeguard against arbitrary and capricious imposition

— eee - - —

13° the Engle decision contemplates good faith attempts by the

states to honor an individuals constitutional rights. Engle v.

Isaac, Supra.

-]10-

of the death penalty. In assessing its role as the tribunal for

review of Florida's death-sentencing scheme, the Supreme Court

of Florida noted, “it is not the function of this court to cull

through what has been listed as aggravating and mitigating

circumstances in the trial court's order, determine which are

proper for consideraton and which are not, and then impose the

proper centence. Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.

1978). Yet, despite its protestations to the contrary, the

Supreme Court of Flroida in this case culled through the list of

aggravating circumstances found by the trial judge, determined

which were applicable to the petitioner, speculated as to the

weight probably given them by the trial court and imposed the

death sentence. (App. 7). In doing so, the Supreme Court of

Florida violated the petitioner's Fight and Fourteenth Amendment

rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Pursuant to Section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes (1977), the

trial court entered written findings in support of its sentence

of death. (App. 6, 137, 138). In its order, the trial court

found the following aggravating circumstances: 1) the petitioner

had previously been convicted of a violene felony, Section

921.141(5) (b), Florida Statutes (1977)3 2) a committing the

crimes, the petitioner knowingly created a great risk of death to

many persons, Id. Section 921.141(5)(c); 3) the crimes were

committed for the purposes of avoiding or preventing lawful

arrest, Id. Section 921.141(5) le); 4) the crimes were committed

during the course of a robbery, Id. Section 921.141(5) (a); 5) the

crimes were committed for pecuniary gain, Id. Section

921.141(5)(f)3 6) the crimes were committed to disrupt law

enforcement, Id. Section 921.141(5) (9); and that the crimes were

especially henious, atrocious and cruel, Id. Section

921.141(5) (h). The trial judge found no mitigating

circumstances. (App. 6).

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida found the evidence

to be legally insufficient to sustain the trial court's finding

that the petitioner knowingly created a great risk of death to

many persons. (App. 7). The court struck that aggravating

@lj-

circumstance. (App. 7).

The Supreme Court of Florida also found error in the trial

court's separate consideration of aggravating circumstances that

were based on the same aspect of the crime. (App. 7). Provence

(1977). As such, the Supreme Court of Florida held that it was

improper for the trial court to find that the murders were

committed in the course of robberies and that they were committed

for pecuniary gain. (App. 7). The same theory was held

applicable to the trial court's improper reliance on its findings

that the murders were committed to avoid or prevent a lawful

arrest and that they were committed to disrupt or hinder the

enforcement of the laws. (App. 7).

After reducng the number of properly found aggravating

circumstances to four, the Supreme Court of Florida nevertheless

upheld the petitioner's death sentence finding that consideration

of the erroneous aggravating circumstances had not interfered

with the weighing process since no mitigating circumstances had

been found by the trial court. (App. 7). The Supreme Court of

Florida's concluson necessarily involves a misinterpretation of

Section 92].141 and the weighing process described therein; a

process inherent in the “channeled discretion" possessed by trial

judges and juries deemed essential to the constitutionality of

Florida's death-sentencing scheme, Godfrey v. Georgia,

U.S. _, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764 (1980); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S.

153, 199 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida,’ supra.

Section 921.141(2), Florida Statutes (1977), requires that a

jury render an advisory sentence based upon a weighing and

comoarison of sufficient aagravating and mitigating

circumstances. Notwithstanding the jury's recommendation, the

trial court, pursuant to Section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes

(1977), must weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances

and determine the appropriate sentence. Brown v. Wainwright, 392

So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1981).

Two observations about the statutory weighing process are

critical to the petitioner's constitutional claim and the

@-}2<

constitutionality of the process itself. First, the weighing

process anticipates that reasoned judgment will be employed as to

the weight to be given to an individual circumstance under a

particular factual situation, rather than a mere counting process

of °X number of aggravating circumstances and Y number of

mitigating circumstances. Dixon v. State, 283 So.2d 1, 10 (Fla.

1973). Second, the weighing process includes not just a

comparison of aggravating and mitigating circumstances but a

weighing of the aggravating circumstances themselves, in the

absence of mitigating circumstances, to determine whether the

death penalty is required for a particular individual. Alvord v.

State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1975).

In Alvord v. State, supra, the Supreme Court of Florida

recognized that a death sentence 1s not required, even where

there are aggravating circumstances, and mitigating circumstances

are absent:

. « » The law does not require that capital

punishment be imposed in every conviction

in which a particular state of facts

occur. The statute properly allows some

discretion, but requires that this

discretion be reasonable and controlled.

No defendant can be sentenced to capital

punishment unless the aggravating factors

outweigh the mitigating factors. However,

this does not mean that in every instance

under a set state of facts the defendant

must suffer capital punishment.

The statute contemplates that the trial

jury, the trial judge and this Court will

exercise reasoned judgment as to what

factual situations require the imposition

of death and which factual situations can

be satisfied by life imprisonment in light

of the totality of the circumstances

present in the evidence. Certain factual

situations may warrant the infliction of

capital punishment, but, nevertheless,

would not prevent either the trial jury,

the trial judge, or this Court from

exercising reasoned judament in reducing

the sentence to life imprisonment. Such an

exercise of mercy on behalf of the

defendant in one case does not prevent the

imposition of death by capital punishment

in the other case.

Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d at 540.

In its opinion below, the Supreme Court of Florida usurped

the role of the trial court by unilaterally reweighing the

remaining aggravating circumstances and arriving at death as an

o})3-

appropriate sentence. (App. 7). As such, the Supreme Court of

Florida went beyond its function as a reviewing court; in this

case, the state court of last resort was the sentencing court.

The lack of mitigating circumstances in this case does not

resolve the question regarding the propriety of death as

penalty. Still to be answered by the trial court was whether the

remaining, properly determined aggravating circumstances were

sufficient to justify imposition of the death penalty under the

factual circumstances of this case. Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d

at 540. Instead, the Supreme Court of Florida erroneously took

it upon itself to resolve that question by apparently assuming

that the trial court would have placed sufficient weight on the

remaining aggravating circumstances to justify the death

penalty. (App. 7). The Supreme Court of Florida's arbitrary

imposition of the death sentence in the instant case violates the

petitioner's Fighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (Sth Cir. 1980), cert.

granted —_—s—sdU«wWS. 102 SCH. 90 (1981), One of the several

aggravating circumstances considered and found in the trial court

was thereafter declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of

Georgia. Id. at 405. The state court, “[a)fter eliminating that

circumstances from consideration . . . found the evidence

supported the jury's findings of the other statutory aggravating

circumstance and held that the sentence was not impaired.” Ibid.

(citation omitted).

The Fifth Circuit found Stephens death sentence to be

violative of the Eighth Amendment. The court noted, “[i]t is

impossible for a reviewing court to determine satisfactorily that

the verdict in this case was not decisively aff cted by an

unconstitutional aggravating circumstance.* Ibid. As a result,

the court concluded that the process in which the death penalty

was imposed was not “rationally reviewable,” as required by the

Eighth Amendment. Ibid. (citations omitted).

Subsequently, in Henry v. Wainwright, 661 F.2d 56 ‘Sth Cir.

1981), the Fifth Circuit reached the same conclusion when a non-

statutory aggravating circumstance had entered into the weighing

y=

process in a Florida trial court. In Henry, respondent

Wainwright argued that the improper consideration of non-

statutory aggravating factors was harmless in view of the total

absence of mitigating factors. The Fifth Circuit rejected that

argument and, in noting ‘that Henry's death sentence had been

upheld in violation of the Fighth Amendment, stated:

. . « Guarding against the arbitrary and

discriminatory impositon of the death

penalty must not become simply a guessing

game played by a reviewing court in which

it tries to discern whether the improper

non-statutory aggravating factors exerted

a decisive influence on the sentence

determination. The guarantee against

cruel and unusual punishment demands

more,

Henry v. Wainwright, 661 F.2d at 59, 60.

As in Stephens v. Zant, supra and Henry v. Wainwright,

supra, a number of improper or erroneous aggravating factors were

considered in the weighing process conducted by the trial court

in the case at har. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida

necessarily engaged in = speculation in concluding that the

excluded aggravating factors played no part in the trial court's

determination that a death sentence was appropriate. The

decisions in Stephens and Henry compel the conclusion that this

type of speculative review is violative of the Fighth and

Fourteenth Amendments. See, Godfrey v. Georgia, Supra.

Intervention by this Court is necessary to remedy the

constitutional violation suffered by the petitioner and to

resolve the conflict of decisions between the Fifth Circuit and

the Supreme Court of Florida regarding” this important

constitutional question.

“1S

CONCLUS ION

The significance of the questions presented in the instant

petition is evident. The need for resolution of these questions

as well as harmonization of the decisions of this Court, the

federal courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Florida is

great. The Writ of Certiorari should issue.

Respectfully submitted,

BENNETT H. BRUMMER

Public Defender

Fleventh Judicial Circuit

of Florida

1351 N.W. 12th Street

Miemi, Florida 33125

(305) 545-3078

: STEIN

Assistant Public Defender

oi6<

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE

OCTOBER TERM, 1981

NO. 8 l-@GOG

MARVIN FRANCOIS,

Petitioner,

-vs-

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

APPFNDIX

INDEX

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida

Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Exhibits in Support

Thereof, Filed in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh

Judicial Circuit of Florida

Transcript of Pre-Trial Proceedings

Section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1977)

Chapter 57-550, Laws of Florida

Chapter 70-1000, Laws of Florida

Rule 3.190, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

RECEIVED

a

APR 28 1982

Orrile OF THE CiehAa

SUPREME COURT, US.

1-8

9-96

97-136

137-138

139-144

145-146

147-149

adopting a

prospective

the mght to

order grant-

al. Such a

r, though, in

ire the more

ting and ap-

> in our law.

‘ly academic

peals by the

Henceforth,

r granting «

“petition for

re, the State

. Where, as

aniy by the

{ this Court

cervioran or

order, the

e the order

nstating the

ntence with-

enefit of an

‘ated for re-

hat a circuit

tecause he

obably been

fyower”™ I

application

4 and ww beeed

sone Lewes

sci 970. 67

ase of a trial

ots eterut the

romved injus

si only where

{ onsufficrency

ee ee

Se ere. Ts TF Fh UE OE Ee rit §6S8D

(Cite as, Pla, 407 Soda eas

1. Homicide @ 2531/1), 25

Marvin FRANCOIS, Appellant, Rotbery ®24.1(1)

v

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Evidence, including testimony of indi-

viduals who survived robbenes and shoot-

ngs which were fatal to six others, was

No. 54461. sufficient to sustain convictions of six

Supre me Court of Flonda

Oct 15

‘

Rehearing Demed Jan. 2, 1982

Defendant was «

Court, Dade County

of sin counts of first

counts of attempted

and three nts of wr

ery, ang ¥ * purses t a aq have ower

g wnte «J to deat? fendant a peraled und oma event, alleged

- °

ihe pre e' t eo ft at ta grt t « 4 t sve fens

‘ ¢

apa t ‘ 7oFr over for 4 ‘ ‘ ae! a¢ ‘

e Imnng, 2 3 ; ent f rrea “e *- re ‘ with w

¢ . ‘

son of alleged ‘ e* n f per ¥y “wa erned

f - ef Fenn , ‘ .

b Ss of 8 ‘ ‘ 1 granag ivy

* ‘ 3. Indictment and Informati

WAS Waive hy ‘ f ng to a

. ‘ ° © > x at

-" yy} ¢ er x ‘

4 . ’ * r *

rt to rule aga ¢ ale ‘ , rahe

y ’

,

r ng have ’ q “ ¥ nm « .

ra'>er ‘ *atute

ven gofa ew grand r and " © f

‘ ‘a “4 . > ar

anew iv ‘ment of a east in a delay f

ade after it has been

tral for purpers ¢ ery ore tia

re.

r , ar . , . * ,

, : ‘ e : ix u . ial P

At)

mort? senta r err re ed rec?

4 . { wer ‘ ‘

ton of three stat ry aggravating recur p

, granag ry « nm re ‘

i | os that were t Pind established

‘ - -

. ‘ o ly “ . ’

v @ ence 4 ‘ ‘ ces aete ever

: ‘ ‘

the eas “arrTs ant avery f. ‘ tw ‘

Nest's FSA §& &

rey ysiv ol ¢. 4 © bh is

° rues f { " ture

ve ved _— "rs ‘ ‘ ’ “A con

’

vieted of 9:1 preme d es hon atvie 4 Criminal Law @ 1026

:

murders c« et me f ’ tting rognt apiea ‘ena

r

roblery and ‘or : ‘, ; ng wit cer ras ny :

‘ f

nesses to cr {fr — were 3 ent r aley

’ f

espewialy ? ‘ a « as and crue} e.% r a

f eevee var

there were four : y aggravatirg r grana ry « “ ‘

‘

cumstances and there were no tigating SY faring ‘ ;

, I " ‘

ret

counts of first-degree murder, two counts

of attempted first«legree murder, and three

counts of robbery

198]

2. Criminal Law @938(1)

A new tral based On assertion that

testirneny of alibi witness was new!y diwor-

ered evidence and that State ppressed

nvicted in the Circurt nformation concerning identity and where

hard S Fuller, J, abeuts of witness was not »

<legree murder, twu f ar e had known about «

degree murder perssimie Value % lefendant

_

>

fz

r

ry oes

”~

Red Pua

discovery or evidentiary hearing or both

US.CA Const. Amend. 14

5. Constitutional Law @=42.1(3)

Defendant had no standing to make

argument that statute upon wh life sen-

tences were based arbitranly established a

presumption that death would be appropri-

ate sentence in a felony-murder situation

inasmuch as the evidence showed that the

defendant was the actual .erpetrator of

five premeditated murders and that defend

ant was a first<jegree principal in one other

murder. West's FSA. §§ 921141, 921-

141(5Xb-h), USCA Const Amends. 5, 14;

West's FS.A Const. Ast 1, § 9

6. Homicide 36

Finding that defendant had been previ

usly convicted of violent felomes, which

J ystified sentences of death on convection of

six counts of murder, was supported by

sufficient evidence West's FSA 4$§ 921

141, 921 1415W bh), t'SC.A Const

Amends 5, 14, West's FS A Const Art 1,

§9

7. Criminal Law @ 1177

A lefendant must be a wed to

present evidence pertaining to the degree f

his or her invoivement in and the circum

stances of the events upon which a court

poses feath sentences nm ass f res

38 convictions of viwient felomes, hut this

dues not moe. a nclumon that an act of

the court in sustaining an objection to the

presentation of such evod

ence requires vaca-

m of the death sentence in each case

West's FSA. §§ 921.141, 921 141/5Nb h)

USCA Const Amends 5, 14, West's FSA

ConstArt 1, § 9

_—*

& Criminal Law @° 1177

Refusal t» allow inquiry inte bhack-

a und of an aggravated assault conviction

which eas one of proor wioent felonies used

to justify sentences of death ur ase did not

warrant vacation of ‘hose sentences where

defendant made no proffer

matters relating to gravity of his previous

criminai activity

921. 1g1(Skb h), USC A Const Amends

14; West's FSA Const Art 1,49

9. Homicide @° 3K

Finding that capital felonies forming

basis of sentences of death in case were

especially heimous, atrocious, or crue! could

be sustained on basis of mental anguish

inflicted on victims as they waited for their

“executions” to be carnmed out West's

FSA. §§ 921.141, 921. 141(5ub hp, USCA

Const Amends. 5, 14, West's F SA Const

An 1.§9

10. Homicide @= 1%

Trial court erred in finding that, in

committing capital felonies forming basis of

sentences of death, defendant knowingly

created a grwat msk of death to many per

sons was error inasmuch as finding was

based on mere spex slation that any others

who approa hed + se would have teen

allled Wests FSA 6§ 921141, ¥21

45ab 4), USC AConst Amends 5, 14

West's F

-A Const Art 1,99

ll. Homicide @> 14

In senter rg lefendant to death afer

Cs g that defendant had heen ; sly

ed f ent fe * tria rt

err] y separates ‘ e facts hat

ers were ai on me of rob

eres and that they were mitted for

,* ar goin “yp arate eration f

factor sf were « ‘ ay ssent ame

AS ie f os @as error West's F A

$§ 921 146), 921 14i/5e ol nat

Amends 5, 14, West's P A Const Art 1

$9

12. Homicide © a |

Principal against double neideration

fasngle factor aggravation eas at

ed by eentencing tee ia Ciadine that mus

y ee z i

‘orm aere mrritted to ay | r pre enta

awful arrest and that they were cor tted

. mum of oe enfor oat off e

ss Wests F A §§ 921142 #21

14]liSeb AD ! cat eat Amends * 14

West's FS A Const Art 1.69

13. Cominal Law @° 94/11)

4a?

14)(5ab h);

Wests FSA

'4. Homicide

Althou gl

resulted in re

gravating c¢

properly esta

of death »«

where defen

ed of felons

lence, wes

erV]8d stron-st)

irse of on

jose of elim

robbery, mu

atre« 1s. an

Y aggray:

sere no mit

FSA 6§ 92)

Const Amenc

Art 1,§9

nett H

" Warren

‘ joe Vt an

nm Smith.

R CU

; 1M

{ a judgme

ro eventh Ju

* h adjua

es. snts o

) g with

“ "7 ok *&

r . fn,

felonies forming

th in case were

8, or crue! could

mental anguish

waited for their

rd out West's

bh) USCA

st’s FSA Const

finding that, in

forming basis of

dant knowingly

ith to many per-

as finding was

that any others

wid have teen

> 921.141, 921-

Amends. 5, 14;

5?

t to death after

teen previously

es, tna! court

ering facts that

n course of rob

‘ committed for

consideration of

y based on same

West's FSA

USCA Const

A Const. Art 1,

© cons:der|at:on

lon was violat-

nding that mur-

d or prevent a

aere committed

ement of the

921.141, 921.-

Amends 5 14,

9

1)

" of erroneous

‘aes. not inter-

ess presented

no mugaung

~-——

~ eee oe

Fe te ee ee ge hee ee gt we

FRANCOIS v. STATE Fila. S87

Che an Pla, 407 So 20 45

circumstances to weigh, no resentencing is

required West's FSA §& 921 141, 921-

141(/5ab-h), USCA Const Amends 5, 14;

West's FSA Const Art 1,§9

14. Homicide 364

Although tral court's sentencing errors

resulted in recitation of three statutory ag

gravating circumstances that were not

properiy established by evidence, sentences

of death were nevertheless warranted

where defendant, twice pre sy nvict

ed of f« es oof ng use or threat of

violence, was nvicted of sit premeditated

execution-style nier mitted n

urse of Y tting r ery and for pur

“ose f clin nat ng « esses Us r es f

roblte ry ror rs were ©%le ally ir .

atree *« and crue here were f r atu

Very aggravating r stances a here

were . gating four ances West's

PSA $$ 921 141, 922 l4l(Sub hy, USCA

Const Amends 5, 14, West's FSA Const

Art 1.69

Bennett? H Brummer. Public Defence 4

and Warren S Schwartz. Asst. Public De

fender, Miamm, for a; peilant

Jim Smith, Atty Gen. and Calvin L Fox,

Asst Atty Gen, Mam, for appelice

This cause is before the Court on appeal

of a ginent f the (is | art f the

Fieventh J a reurt, Dade County

which ac {cated € apjyr ant g y of

"5 snus fr er in he forst ogree

along with addit ‘ mimes rsuant to

whockh sin sentences of death were persed

spon him. This Court has jur n of

hos appeal Art V § haelh Fla mat

The - t{« ns aston sin ants

f first«legree murder, two counts of at-

firstalegree munier and three

temp od eZ

counts of robbery. The evidence showed

that in he early eve rs { July 27 97

Jotn Errol Ferguson gained mirnittance to

the horie of Lis ngvtion Stacker on the Carol

City section of Miar by posing as 4 power

company employee Margaret Woxlen was

present in the home at the time After

Med py AT AT

: eh? St

enternng, Ferguson hound Wanden's hands

and blindf« ded her Then he adr tted

Beauford White and the appellant Marvin

Francois The three men searched the

house for valuables, taking some firearms

and sme of Margaret Woesten's jewelry

Then the three men covered their faces

with Masas

" ereatter lus PS saner ar

nved e with five (rmends 1 (lay

‘ ’ y Ma and nu of **

+ and Gy) bert Williame {

ers ties the us en p and ~* r

va aves ster NS ae ae ee

x n tumaners ephese 4 et at ‘“e

b ira rie tom “as tot ip a ir ad

T gore liar ask ¢ o - (f and

he ‘ arecdl ‘hat a ‘ ‘« | ave

t - . ot , guson -« \" garet

Wusten and Michael Miller a teviroom

and shot them both in . afd with oe

5 oi Arce lant Pranenis time he er

am | , rt ar her - . .

the * . n the flaor, a . em

each in the head with @ shotgun

After the three attackers depaced, Mar

garet Warten ran to 8 ne ‘g”tars ? « to

call for he Hu When the pm © arm vet “hey

found Johnny Hall crawling toward the

hack daor of the house Both Wreelen and

Hall survived and testifiet at tra The

other sia victims died At tral, Johnny

Hall etfentified the appr ant as the man

who shot him and five others «.th a shot

gun Theresa Rolle teatifimt that } ‘

ad ed & her his part ‘ n the

murders

4 9 Archie testified that he took

Fra ‘ Fery and “ ‘e “ners

he ein hes sp and waited for them down

the street He testified further that it «as

u ecessary for him t pick the ner three

up and drive them away since thev depart

ed the scene im Stocker’s car Arche met

the other three later and assisted in ditpos

ing of « vicence He testifiet that iy" ant

Pras s told hirm that the real jase of

the venture was not robber but murder

Francois stated further, according to Ar-

chie'’s testimony, that he and Ferguson had

wah

~~

cafe Oia. WY,

Seaken JW ic)

x4

t./- ’ . ry . " 7

a 45 ee : Py sh 4 cca ee thd Bae 2 21

pee Sue ee “t.. Mcteg tee 81S A LEE Oe Cine td ep ogo Sard. Bee ae ee

A ~ Fe DG US Se it > A gehen An

a JR ae tN } > Pe es oo 9 Wie St Me pact ete Poe

¥

4 Ts) ~ , - “<<

RSS Fila. 407 SOLTHERN REPORTER, 24 SERIES

om

ct 4 - :

oa done te shooting Arche pied guilty to Thirdly, appeliant contends that the judg- the court grants

~

a* second<degree murter and received a sen- ments must be reverse d because to try a here was timely

= fi tence of twenty years imprsonment defendant under an indictment returned by granted the app

4 ‘ .

“ : a grand jury from which persons ; which t

t Prior to trial, appellant moved to dismiss & —Adtied . i of a par © file his

ae

. trcular race have heer ;

' the indictment on the ground that it was : . —~— = [4] Although

ss cluded denies equal pr of the law ' ly fil

a ssued by a grand jury selected under a ‘ . ’ was timely filed

—_ - : = ooellant’s motion to dismiss alleged that

43 procedure that systematically excludes mi ached wee waived hs mght

. ? . there had teen for a number of years a rotons f 4is¢

} norities from participation. He moved also ’ s for disco.

_ suhetantia fieparty between the vercent . wee aja

}- for an evidentiary hearing on the motion, , : "s (ne at

v 4 > , ’ HM «par Nieto -

age oF aces and it anics in i/ace Ou ’ . +

» and for discovery of the master list from ‘ , yenty pursue the

. ’ ty s «¢ ble tm atior i th eenntam 4 i

t which grand jurors are drawn ° ’ xh sete a : art te

; servi ’ | cieg 6CUM ‘ 4 *

a “ grand ‘ bie ‘ ‘ at rd shows that

Zz n order for him to have made out a pmma _ .

~*~ [}} Appetiant, nh essence, presents three ’ ; siderat

> fame case of discriminatory selection, which " a Gen . '

ssues on appeal of the judgments of convic . snuary 3, |

Bi a " ’ ‘ would Nave req red a show g of stifica ‘ s were argued

tion He contends first that the evidence argue

tion from the state, he newfed to have a t «*

presented at tnal was insufficrent to sup . et stat

; , oan te the erand iury master ’ ‘

. “ gr7ansc . ef ‘ " , 30 -

rt the sdgments of conv hoor We fred . . The only ot}

’ ‘ «> 4 > . *¢. red tar :

; ave - Bee a an ey ‘ ary . m

however, that the judgments sere rendered , ' n to

. hearing .

pursuant to jury verdicts that were based tment bas

*\f -” ; fr ‘

on mipetent, substantial evidence Appei- {3} Appellant argues that hus allidavits rand Jury and

: antia ppel

lant’s first argument is without ment and proffered exhitits demonstrated a dis ry hearing on

panty (that eas nikely to te due w going to forego

{2 Sewondly, appellant argues that he chance, thus entitling him to dimovery of In fact, I an

should have teen granted a new tral te the master list and an evidentiary hearing famng on it t

ause of newly discovered evidence and he. See Castanda v Fartida, 410 US 482, 97 because I do not

cause the evidence in question was known © Ct. 1272, 51 L Ed 24 698 (1977), Dyaman an get this ca:

to the state at the time of trial but not © State, 294 Se 2d 633 (Fla 1974), Rojas» Transempt of Pro

; es on on - one : :

daclosed to him Appellant's metion for “tate, aA »24 TM (Fia 1973). Seay » Further pre-trial

, més S 627 (5 -9 ot der : ‘

new tral alleged that shortiy before sen- State, 26 So 24 532 (Fla 3973), cert dened ary 21 and

» . ‘e : ‘ : ’ ’ oo

tencing a woman named Sheila Walker ap = $19 US S47, 95 SCt BM, 42 | Pai 2d i stter was not

wt ? ‘>. .

proached defense counse! and sad that ap (1974) In response the state argues that inse On Feb

pellant was with her at 1100 pm on the the appellant waived his mght to raise this leclared that he w

night of the murders. The motion asserted = '**¥e by not timely filing his motion The ever, the tral wa

cof . 4 to A "

that this was newly discovered evidence and state refers us to scton #1505, F ‘a egin until April

. : rare > fre A

that the state had suppressed nformation atules (iy - mh provides el Mr Diaw

concerning the identity and whereatmuts f A challenge or jectuon tw the grand fiers to the

this witness. If anyone had anowen stout jury may not be made after it has teen f ng exchang

this witness and her possibile value to the empaneied and sworn This section shaii “OR DIAMOS

: sed fo bs gurpeses. however t not apply to a person who did not know fore we start «

s see ra > i ’ ’ art on

would have teen the defendant Further or have reasonable ground to televe, at arr t sure wt

more, the evidence showe! that the mur- the ‘ime the grand jury was empaneied at this pois o

ders were committed #e|| tefore 11 Opm, and sworn, that cases in which he was of Lecause of the

so the testimony it was alleged the aitness might be involved would be investugated : tefendants Ne

would give would not have teen probative by the grand jury four defendan'

and would not have changed the outcome We find that the statute does not apply to throughout

See United States v Agurs, 427 US 97,96 the instant case Rather, we conclude that There were

SCt 2392. 49 L.Ed ti M2 (1976), Thomas the time limit for the filing of the motion to all motions pre

v State, 374 Sold WS i Pla 1Y79), cert de diame «ar governed by Flonda Rule of re mn to diem

nied, 45 US. 972, 100 SCt 166, & Criminal Preeedure 32 19iic), which provides meat in this cas

L Fd 24 249 (1980) Therefore, appellant's that a motion to dismiss is to te made , ‘ dismissed —

contentions on this issue are without ment either before or upon arraignment uniess : mis ed by ths C

en ee ra

vat the judg-

se to try &

returned by

wns of @ par-

natically ex-

of the law

alleged that

r of years @

the percent-

» Dade Coun-

e percentage

rontends that

gp out a poms

lection, which

g of justifica-

d to have ac-

r list and also

in evidentiary

his affidayits

nstrated a dis

io be due to

o discovery of

ntiary heanng

oUS &2.97

1977); Dykman

1974); Rojas ¥

1973), Seay ¥

3), cert. denied,

42 LEd2d 77

ste argues that

rht to rane this

is motion. The

205.05, Flonds

ides.

on to the grand

fier it has been

rhis section shall

ho did not know

vd to televe, at

was empaneled

which he was or

i be investigated

does not apply

we conclude that

+ of the motion to

Florida Rule of

<), which provides

s is to be made

raignment uniess

ows oe” ~-—<<oweee

ss

ape ecm 0@

<6 «2 anne

‘

————— +70 one

a ee ee + ar -—-— et ow ——o ©

FRANCOIS v. STATE ‘ Fla 889

Cire an. Fla, 607 So.24 084

the court grants further time The motion

here was timely filed because the court

granted the appellant additional time in

which to file his motion

[4] Although we find that the motion

was timely filed, we hold that appellant

waived his mght to appeal the denial of his

motions for discovery, for a hearmng, and to

dismiss the indictment, by failing to dil

gently pursue the matter and by inducing

the tnal court to rule against him The

record shows that appellant's motion came

up for consideration at & pre tnal heanng

held January 3, 1978, at which other mo-

tions were argued At that heanng appel-

lant’s counsel stated

The only other motion that 1 filed

the motion to dismiss the Grand Jury

ndictment based on the Blue Ribbon

Grand Jury and requesting an €* dentia-

ry hearing on that point, but it Il am

going to forego any arguments on that

In fact, 1 am not going to ask for a

hearing on it until a later date sumply

because | do not think there ws any © 8) 1

can get this case to tral by next weer

Transcript of Proceedings. vol I, at 12-13

Further pre-tnal hearings were held on

February 2) and 2, 1978, and again the

matter was not brought up by defense

counsel On February 27 defense counsel

declared that he was ready for tnal How-

ever, the tnal was not finally scheduled to

begin until April 17. On that day defense

counsel, Mr. Diamond, brought the movon

to dismias to the co ort’s attention and the

following exchange ens ved

MR DIAMOND Your Honor, just be-

fore we start on the motion to su; press, |

am not sure «hat pretnal motions have

at this pount teen granted and have not,

because of the fact that we have three

defendants. Now there are four. We 1,

four defendants have been charged

throughout °

There were motions to adopt based on

ail motions previously filed. 1 filed 8

motion to dismiss the grand jury indict-

ment in this case omgnally 1 beliewe it

was dismissed —I mean, it #89 not dis-

missed by this Court. It was dismissed in

other courts with regard to these defend-

ants. This Court did not dismiss the in-

dictments against them

THE COURT. That 1s true I find the

grand jury was legally constituted, and I

deny the motions

MR DIAMOND Fine

Transeript of Proceedings, vol. I, at 40

This exchange reveals that defense coun:

sel practically invited the court rule

against him A favorable ruling on the

motion would have resulted, possibly, in the

convening of a new grand jury and the

ssuance of a new ind ctment, of at least in

a delay of the tral for purposes of dis

covery oF an evidentiary heanng of berth

Yet the record also reveais that appellant

and “9 counsel did not press for a pretnal

ruling because they did not want to delay

the tmal. The de fense tactic was to Gelay

the deciding of the claim of grand jury

legality until just before tnal, in hopes ©

upsetting the conviction on appes! ia

Francs v Henderson 428 US 536.% set

1708, 48 L bat 2d 149 (1976)

ed States, 411 U Ss 23, 939 SCt 1577, 36

L.Ed 2d 216 (1973) We cannot condone

such tactics and therefore refuse ce naider

ry e*s

jae { vt

thes sue on appeal

Finding no ment in any of appellant's

halienges to the convictions, we affirm

them

We come now to cons feration of the

sentencing proceeding and sentences 0

teath Appellant presents & series of argu-

ments with regard thereto

{5} Appellant argues t?

141, Flonda Statutes (1977), violate

process by art traniy establishing & pre-

sumption that death 19 the approprs

tence in & felony mur ter st uator hecause

the existence of the uncer yng felony can

be used to aggravate the capital felony

Appellant has fo standing to mane this

argument since the evidence shows that he

was the actual perpetrator of five premedi-

tated murders and was 4 firstalegree pmn

cipal in one vther murder. Moreover, we

recently rejected this argument when it

was presented by an api" ant who has

890 Fla

stahding to raise it. White v. State, 4083

So2d 331 (Fla. 1981)

The judge found that appellant had twice

previously been convicted of a violent felo-

ny, section 921.141(5%b), Florida Statutes

(1977); that in committing the crimes ap

pellant knowingly created a great msk of

death to many persons, Id. § 921.141/5¥ ec},

that the crime was committed for the pur-

poses of avoiding or preventing lawful ar-

rest and disrupting law enforcement, Id

§ 92) 14%5Me) & (g), that the crnmes were

committed during the coume of a ~wbbery

and for pecuniary gain, Id § 921 145ud) &

if. and that the capital felomes were espe-

cially heinous, atrucious, ard cruel Id

§ 921.14K(5Mh). The found that

there were no mitigating circumstences

j ige a

‘

[6] Appellant contends that the finding

that he had teen previously convicted of

violent felonies was not supported by suffi-

cent evidence. At the sentencing heanng

the state called as @ witness @ court clerk

who brought along court files Yrom two

pnor cmminal prosecutions 4 peron

named Marvin Franems Copies of docu-

ments from those files-.a judgment of con-

vietion for robbery and a judgment of con-

viction for aggravated battery and posses-

sion of a firearm during a criminal of-

fense—were admitted into evidence Ap-

pellant claims that these documents were

an insufficient basis upon which to conclude

that he had the prior convictions

gues that the state should have teen re-

He ar-

quired to do more in order to prove teyond

a reasonable doubt that he was the same

Marvin Framow named in the documents

We disagree and hold

judgments of conviction for wo

that the comes of

ent fe ones

naming Marvin Francow &s the convicted

defendant constituted sufficient proof of

the aggravating factor

have rebutted the information or chal-

lenged the accuracy of the ducuments had

he chosen to try to do so

Appellant could

In further carrying its burden of showing

this aggravating circumstance, the stau

presented the testimony of the assistant

state attorney who had prosecuted appel-

lant on bis aggravated assault charge. On

407 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

cross«xamination, defense counsel asked

the witness whether, the judgment was

based upon a negotiated plea with a sen-

tence of probation. The court sustained the

state's objection to this inquiry, reasoning

‘

that the judgment of conviction spoke for

itself m establish rg the factor of previous

conviction of a violent felony

{7.8} Appellant argues that the court

erred in not allowing inquiry nto the hack

ground of the aggravated assault convic

tion. In Ellenige v State, W6 Sold 998

(Fla 1977), the state at the sentencing hear-

ing called as a witness the relative of the

wetirmn of a murder, other than the one for

which the defendant was teing tned, to

’

testify about the deta ff the other mur

der. This Court held that this was appro

priate “because we beleve he purpose for

considenng aggravating and mitigating cir

cumstances is to ergage in a char «ter aral-

yes of the defendant to ascertain whether

the ultimate penalty is called for im his of

her particu-ar © Id at 1M. Con

inf 4

versely, a defendant must te allowed

to

present evidence pertaining to the degree of

his or her involvernent in and the crcum-

stances of the events upon which previous

This prin iple dues

convictions are based

’

not compel the conciusion, however, t?

at

the court's sustaining the objection requires

The de-

fense made no proffer of its own of matters

vacation of the death wntence

relating to the gravity of appellant's previ

The def

‘

ous emminal activity e cefendant as

of course perfect ) free to do ~ It e ould

be a different case if the court had exc'ud-

ed evidence proffered by the defendant re-

butting the state's evidence of aggravation

or relative to ary matter in mitigation

See Lavhett vo Oh, 448 US ah OS SCL

SA, 57 L Ba 24 973 (1978): Viller vo Stata,

332 Seo 24 65 (Fla 1976)

(9) The appellant argues that the tral

court erred in finding that the capital felo-

nies were especially heinous, atracious, or

cruel. We hold that the finding can be

sustained on the basis of the mental an-

guish inflicted on the victims as they aaited

for their “executions” to be carned out

White v. State, 403 Sold 31, No HZ?

(Fla. 1981)

— + oe

{10) The a

trial court err

ting the cap

knowingly cre

many persons

was error. TI!

cides, but the

other persons

on the specula

proached the }

The existence |

may not be

White v Stat

{11} The a

the tral court

ing the facts

mitted in the

they were cor

Separate con#

essentially bas

crimes is error

v State, 337 §

ned, G1US |

1065 (1977) FE

gravating cir

committed suc

[12] Appell

“doubling up”.

tral court's fir

committed to

arrest and th

disrupt or hin

laws) Again,

argument anc

against double

tor in aggrava’

tencing judge

State

{13) A’ ow

ing errors resu

Statutory agg

were aot pro

dence, we fn

should stil! be

ation of cerre

stances dows na

ing process pr

there are no

weigh, no res

Hargrave v. §

ee. <ct

3s

FRANCOIS ». STATE

Fla 89]

—

—_—

, fenee counsel asked °

. Pa =

er, the judsment was {10} The appeiiont oon Fla, 607 Saad 00s

¢ a. argue \

‘tiated plea «ith a sen- trial court erred in fir gues that the cert. denied, 444 U

P ' ting th . , + S 919 } >

The court sustained the lee tie col 6 g that in commit- L Ed 24 176 (197! 0 SCt 239. 62

>t nal ; a ,?' ‘ .f nies the i ? “ . ‘ y 4s 2) Eliedge a ‘

his INGUITY, reasoning : - wingly created a g t appelant So 24 948 (Fla 1977 & v State, 46

. | . ” re res af a . aeal

of conviction spoke for i many persons Ww bel ° . | eath to 1

. . We agree that 4 T?

z the factor of re ' j was err -~ * at this find ng i ] ihe apy cnt n :

] peeves od phere were six P pre aving tmen {tu

ent felony. ton that the . eparate horn a y ' text ‘ ¢ ee

| ther cdhacactn son that many) © - r threat f £

argues that the court } er persons were endar . y . “<- ew ted

‘al = * ‘ * rex ‘ Py

— inquiry int the hack ' nm the js st that was based “iets ‘ il’ exe ‘ . a

o =<" : her tted i

"ravated assault owie | proached the } as a a’ ay SRE ‘ “ ra a

v. St TP ie oe «ed - , { ‘ “ ‘ .

State, M6 Sold 998 The existence of aggravat 1 the « purpose of « ting

. i ; : ' , es

© at the sentencing hear i ay a he esta a . es esof -? The

' * 7 x - ery were ¢ .

iness the relative of the White » te 08 Se n ad ; :

th a ] , ‘ There ve f

, Other than the ne fen : " - e

GT M1] The P ; . ¥

in \ ie , ; ,

t was be ‘e toed, to } the : ad s further at : . ¥ aere )

J i ed . =

etails of the other mur | ) erred ; : 6 ;

if- ae 6 ‘ ‘ ot fr ‘ ext eath P

eld that th @ tie fests that the mus “pager aged

hel us was appro } mitted in ¢} . em were _ of ’ ‘ . — a . t«

‘ “vy the 9 ‘ 4 ‘ . ; e write

; e the purjese for , thes : eres 4 that " es of death

ating and mitigating cur vere ye It is 50 ontered ,

. “ . ‘ . ‘ _* ary °

erage mach r ? * ’ . ’ as . . 7 a s°

aracter anal } : rs .

ant to a ' essentially based on ' at are ADAIN ;

ascertain ehether | he same aanect of th a \ . -

. ‘ mee i _ ; ' © | LN " 4 ae.f . ae v

ty is called for in his of erver. White + DONALD. JJ :

= ‘ = v Ss - oe i’rowence ° f

- sane : ate . .

ld at 1001. Cos cob legeneee Asay SDBERG. | :

on od 4 ‘ e . ‘ . saith ar .

int must be allowed to i wh “9.9 _ —- “yy . In opie

rt * Feaed , ov ti 2d

taining to the degree of } ¢ ¢ both stat _

Tava’ , 4 ‘ ui

ment in and the rrum- i oe * ' es the + ~ : . s

nots — com mitted rial court » dient fram % x

upen which rey 59 } as h error — ‘ :

’ ’ ° yo re ‘

ved cansider th i] to

This principle does } [12] Appellant d x e of .

i? , es err , 7 .

ynelusion, however, that eat shes the same kind of epresentatior

. . gv f et . ; - ,

ing the objer(oon re ; owial neha, are « ect to th sures he ma grand

‘ ’ ares a rts CoA —_ _- © ‘ . s' =? 4

eath sentence The de {: committed ¢ . at the murders were el practica ‘ :

‘Tero : ; - avor’d or ag ~ rule

f its o* atlers i arrest and that th s sew ful ‘ ‘ Tr’ sue a

wity of app int’s prev a ey “ere mmitted to . ve © a reversal of |

, =i ; f e + . 7 e ¢ '

ity. The def: nant . e enforcement of tt appa That is ss

’ nk wes ‘ aes Avain, we f ; e . a '

4 a or ‘ .

free to do % It - id | as ent “ apie ant's y 4 ‘

i | gurment , " 4 ‘ . ‘ atex

, if the court ' j ’ and ; that the “= © trexoorl ed in

. ad eaciud- , swainet d ple

red by th 4,¢ j = sure f eratoor , tet

é ne cr cencant re i —_— — . ; a single fac Ja srw 3 P P

evide ‘ . ae ‘ “as + ‘ . Fi oat . r « at

ne of gerarat on _ ne ie m ‘ ated y the sen a amt

* ** sae hite cy - . 2 .

matter in mt yation j State v State. Provence v eques for evrde ar and

0, 8 US (6. SCH | cree eee ead ‘ ae

] ° a : ‘ v °

[3 (1978); v erv State (13) a . ‘ par at ten os -! “AS A oa

976) cana Gael 1] court's sentence ent pressive array of over sev

es ed in the re Se y peers f ' . ,

statutory . three dat ts one hi" ,

int argues that the trial y aggravating . a ated ta if he re nal “Tee sas het x

on b ob re } were not pr 2 al ay reveals that : ; > Zz t

g that the capital felo- | pasTS / cerly esta ed by the ev me at appellant wanted * os

y heinous, racious. oF i we find that the sentences of d lera n of the grand eee ie

’ should «t f death asd : jury . omply on

hat the finding can te } s te upheld Where the ler to prepare adequately f .

" . | at a of cor er the ob . hat ar {

h /_ i ' errone other numer

asis of the inental an- } 6 > sggravating circum- trial amerous issues in th :

. ances 4 ° , ; r WwW ‘

he victims as ‘hey waited ' ote t interfere with the « + . when the tior arne ,

- . ’ a - , , e . 4) r 's 4) |

ons” to be carnmed out g process prescmiied ¢ of atest . . ment (timely, « ’ .

8 Se 2 poo - , iN ‘ there are ¢ J a.ule wcause os ad . rity on) che

So2d 331i, No 432 . ugating circumst srt demed it out of hand +>

- stances * » = st here fit

weigh, no resent i evidentians | t

entencing is re a ; ary hearnneg ~

H ’ qu red Cw a ‘ ‘ ra ise a

argrave v. State, 366 Se we not find the claim t sige did

. 46 Sold 1 (Pla 1978) rather ‘ to have lawn warned °

, = sd al fically Genre’ t on t>

‘ t , we me

f athe toe

UPA a

4

A

.+

‘bes

r

er

407 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

892 Fla

At that point counsel could do no more to err by refusing to impanel advisory

4A

. :

assert his claim ,

;

Because | believe appellant proffered ma

terial facts to establish a prima facie claim

, 1 minal * meavatis

of an illegally composed grand jury, he had criminal history as aggravating

a ’ tof ne ‘ oat

a constitutional mght to an evidentiary ““#nce Inseac oF as counter to allega

\ sony 7, that a« oe vee lack of Sgr f ant past rir nal hist

heanmng on nal “ue ae an * 4

bama, 377 US. 12. 86 SCr 1152 12 Mitigating circumstance was

‘ >

L &4 24 190 (194 Dyarman v State "+4 y rt rather than jury

s 3 3 (Fla y73) The rr r le es

. Ae tee | ; ‘ ‘

; 2 Criminal Law @ 1192

api ant that re ht e su nm the ov st : P .

° Zz eat” & ‘ * Tor

sparse of recort’s, it perceives tha nee

: rder, f aing re ral

nvited that urt error | ; tle s

e err failing cider test

ck W impulse orf rus motives to de-

‘ ' er gosts and ater re ating

fense se!

: J i

fendant’s re ta where tra

“as t req Oo give we ght

-\ te % . . he ¥

f- -

\ ‘ *e *, ‘. . . are ‘ft P nh ‘

—

’ ty to present ¢ , tiga

rginal sents ng prxey a

3. Crominal Lae © 956201)

’ , 7

Mark MIKENAS, Appellant. In imposing death sentence

ory eder. tna - ‘ @ err

’

rye . * ¢ . a sa a

: s * . e @eere

ee. , .

ond A llee

S"aTlE of t a. Appe a sine ead is wy G2

No. 49928 stance would tx nsidered in «

with robtery r neta * «here

Supreme Court of } nda 7

ry r metance @as nd to t=

Aan . 6 18) a' 'g 4 A °

hearin Doe nied Jan mA, i9ee

Rebeanng = mp dees as 4. Criminal Law @ 956 4(1)

t ron. ng death sentence los

. e te rt 4 er a *

On remand for resents g f aing it a ‘

. ° rt ‘ os ‘ .

affirmance f dels ant's f ‘gre . ea

- ‘ ‘

ler wonvict n 67 id Ode the Cir t el { where ete “at

* . ? 4 - !

Court. hme gh | aty. J. ¢ eat =r ty wiry : F

ntitlesd ¢ w its - 3

wood, J, senter i defendant to death, and * = = - ”

‘ « , ‘ . ra

he apjeaied he preme Court, Adains S aSes

! held that tma rt 3 t err y re Wests FSA + e® mmeoroe., § .

aw 3 ;

fusing t mpane : wry sry by fa z

to consider lestir ny of psyc? gists ano

- ’ ' he t ‘

minister concerning defendants rehabiits Judge C Luckey, sr i acta

’

tion, or by failing to strike all or part of

presenlence investigation report

Affirmed

and Jerry Hill, Public Defender

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for

1. Criminal Law ©1192 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen and Puls

In umposing death sentence for felony-

murder, after remand, tr al court did not lee

where order of remand did not require

the Thirteenth Judicial Cireust, Bru

Mason, Asst Atty Gen, Tampa, for

ther jury deliberations, and where error in

ry as

to be corre: ted

Cury, Cthef Aset Public Deferader, Tampa,

ADKIN

H tape

re anded

resente ;

r a jiuiy

ore

tantia

s af ’

; ce

. r

;

for F hes

e by

nds

—*

sth

f the P

‘

*

mgin

‘

.

‘ " -

. ’

_ ‘

. )

Clone

‘ ¢

eae |

rf

ore

es on 4

‘

.

, »

‘ . }

‘'a tarry

tore ft ‘

ttet bh

rte ‘

}

‘

he j

.* n

, ent

tence

{i} ’

¢-,

at 610 if

roe ~

‘ 4

a z

rade '

, ‘

Zz ‘ ‘

ipoer 4

murder f

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

4 CASE NO: 77-2865) (Fuller)

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

: MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMEN 2ASED

vs. - UPON THE ILLEGAL COMPOSITION OF TKE

: GRAND JURY FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING;

MARVIN FRANCOIS, : AND FOR THE DISCOVERY OF CERTAIN MATTERS

RELATING TO GRAND JURY COMPOSITION _

fendant.

——— —

COMES NOW the Defendant, MARVIN FRANCOIS, by and through his

lL) Dismiss the Indictment

2) Hold an Evidentiary Hearing to Getermine tne legality

of e Grand Jury composition and the se.ection procedure utilized tor

3) Order discovery of the following matters

(a) The names, addresses and voter registr tion

: ts baa

numbers of all persons on each Grane sury Master List since.and including

(d) ALL documents in the possession of the

*

Clerk of the Circuit Court and/or the Grand Jury Commission describing

the system used in selecting each Grand Jury Master List down through

%

©

my

ve

=

~

re

©

"

FS)

the selection of the actual Grand Jury, including a sampl

questionnaires or affidavits utilized to interview or screen potential

Grand Jurors. The documents should include any documents descri>ing

the reduction of prospective Grand Jurors (1) from those on the voter

registration list to the Grand Jury Master List of 509 and (2) from the

Grand Jury Master List to the actual Grand Jury. All documents

describing the process utilized for all judicial nominations and all

documents setting forth the names of all persons who at any stage

in the selection process were nominated by judges should also be

included. The above requested discovery should be made in camera

and with such safeguards as the Court deems just.

The grounds for this Motion are as follows:

(a) The Grand Jury is illegally constituted as being

in violation of the Defendant's rights under the Due Process and

Equal Protection Clauses of the

.

~~

ed

yl

e

"

®

i

vw

‘>

.

4

|

pa

r?

| ed

~

»

t

we

a |

”

™®

*

;

vu

"

t

?

vy between

?

+

®

a ® |

&

"4

G

taal

3

?

he

OP]

i]

“i

Oo

aa

u

&

"

“

@)

=

u

oO

mm

‘“

rh

o4

‘

23

=

a

t

he

f

’

r¢

3

ican cescent

qualified to serve, and the percentages of such persons aetually on

the Grand Jury Master List of five hundred names from which the srand

Jury was selected.

2) There has been the same marked disparities

between the percentages of persons of African or Latin American

descent qualified to serve and the corresvonding percentages actually

shown, i.e., 1973 through 1977.

3) The Grand Jury selection procedures set. forth

in Chapter 57-550 as amended by Chapter 70-1000, Laws of Florida perm:

and in fact necessitate, the racial identification of potential juror

during the selection of the Grand Jury list. The procedures

inherently encourage the Jury Corznissioners to select potential jrand

Jurors on the basis of personal friendship or acquaintanceship.

4) The Grand Jury selection procedures are

designed to and result in Grand Jury lists which uncer-represent perse

luv

of African and Latin American descent and other cognizable classes.

The procedures seem to guarantee that even those few members of

these classes who may appear on the lists are not fair representatives

of the classes involved.

(d) An Evidentiary Hearing is necessary to present

evidence to establish the above allegations beyond any doubt. The

evidence that will be presented is outlined in the Offer of Proof.

(¢) The sought after discovery is essential to the

proof of the above allegations and without such discovery a fair and

full hearing on the Constitutional issues

*

Tt. Statistical Evidence of Di

The Defendant will show dy comparing the follow ng

ages of persons of African or Latin Anerican cescent

(a) percentage of population of Dace County

(Source: Dept., of Commerce Census Bureau *igures)

(b, percentage of registered voters (1973 - 1977)

(Source: Dade County Department of Elections) :

(c) percentage of Grand Jury Master Lists (i973 -

1977yY (Source: the names, addresses and voter registration numbers of

the people comstituting the lists are in the

Jury Commission and the Clerk of the Circuit Court. after this

information is obtained the required demographic data will then .e

obtained from the Dade County Department of Elections or via a

afe

(d) percentage of Grand Jurors (1973 - 1977)

(Source: The names and addresses of actual Grand Jurors were

obtained from the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The corresponding

demographic data was obtained from the Dade County Department of

Elec”ions)

The attached chart, Racial Composition of Dade County

Grand Jurys (Exhibit A) is based on data obtained from the Clerk of

the Circuit Court and the Dade County Dept., of Elections and the

Cencus Bureau. The chart indicates a marked disparity between th

percentages of African or Latin American descent who actually served

an” = = Ps - .

on Grand Jurys. The exact percentages of persons of African or

-- meet eas 4 - > - Ce 4 T.5 Factor ? oo -"annonr se

ip S| lericam cescent on tne Granc sury sStié se 3t353 imnet oe

exactly ascertained until the sought after discovery is tained;

these percentages can, however, be estimated with a high degree of

statistical accuracy. There is a marked disparity between these

estimated percentages and the corresponding registered voter and

general population percentages.

(Exhibits 3, C and D.)

Ir

Evidence of Existence of Co e Classes.

.

rv.

<a.

Persons of African and Latin American descent tend to

differ from Non-Latin Whites in beth attitudinal and demographic

wariables and their adequate representation on the Grand Jury would

make a real difference in the performance of the Grand Jury.

.

The following examples of demographic differences are

taken from Profile of the Latin Population in the Metropolitan Dede

County Area. Office of the County Manager, Fall 1976 which is here

incorporated into this Motion as Exhibit &.

Socio - Economic Status

. Spanish Non-Latin

Black Speaking Whites

Median Family Income: $ 5,983 $ 8,091 $ 10,563

Percent of Families

below Poverty: 27.7% 13.8% 6.8%

Median School Years Attained

(population 25+): 9.4 10.4 12.2

Percent Overcrowded Housing ;

(1.01 persons plus per room): 33.1 ' 32.6 ee

Overcrowded Housing

Housing Unit Occuvancy

ee eth ee - -——_—— — ~—— ie

Black tatin Other

Persons per rcom:

1.01 to 1.50 15.4% 14.4% 3.0%

1.51 and over Av .¥ 18.2 2.2

Total Overcrowded 13.1% 32.6% 5.2%

Income Sources

Per Capita Income

Non-Latin

Blacks _Latins _ ahites

Wages and Salaries: $ 1,481 > 2,107 $ 2.998

Non-Farm Self-Employment: 59 162 379

Farm Self-Employment 3 7 3

Social Security & Retirement 47 32 295

Public Assistance 32 35 3

All Other: . oy 96 116

TOTAL Median Earned Income $ 1,678 5 2,439 $ 4,314

Persons ver Household

**Persons per ‘Persons 0?

. __Househole =" _Family**

Latin: 3.61 3.50

Black: 3.73 4 27

rn

Non-Latin whites: 2.57 3.9

Sud- Families

Cencus data on “sub-families” gives us some idea of the extent whicf

Latins have taken others into their homes for economic, or other re:sons

A “sub-family"” is one which is related to the head of the primary f.anily

living in a residence.

Husband-Wife Sub-families as

percent of husbanc-wite tote

: families . _—_>

Latin: 1 le

Slack 2.5%

Non-Latin Whites L.Fe

13

o$- —

Percentage of Distribution of Workers

by Industry

Male Latin Black Non-Latia

.

riculture: 1.8% 5.9% 1.5%

ning: 0.2 0.2 0.2

Construction: 8.6 16.9 10.4

Manufacturing:

Durable 15.0 4.9 5.6

Non-Durable: 11.0 4.2 4.3

Transportation: 8.2 Leas 15.5

Wholesale and Retail Trade: 26.8 p> Oe oS

Finance, Insurance %& Real Estate: 3.7 2.7 ra

Business & Repair Services: 5.8 4&4 5.7

Personal Services: 8.2 6.3 4.4

Entertainment & Recretational

Services: 1.4 1.3 Je

Professional & Relat ed Services ee 9.5 11.8

Public Administration: Paap 4.5 7.9

- U . LQ WA l 0%

Female

Agriculture >. 8% 3.5% 0.7%

Mining: 0 l - e

Consttuction: 0.6 0.5 ive

Manufacturing:

ceed iy 7.4 1.3 3.2

Non-Durable: 32.6 3.9 4.4

Transportation: 3.5 Le 9.4

Wholesale & Retail Trade. 19.9 13.1 26.5

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 6.9 , 10.0

Business & Repair Services: 3.1 3.4

Personal Services: 11.8 6.3 .&

Entertainment & Recretational

Services: 0.5 0.7 1.3

Professional & Related Services 13.2 30.4 28.6

Public Administration: (fe 2a eet oe

100% 100% 100%

Occupations by Ethnicity and Sex - 1%

Professional’ & Technical: 9.8% +. 8% 17.1%

Managers & AcGministrators: 8.5 3.1 1%.5

Sales: 7.8 2.9 oe

Clerical: 9.4 5.6 ¢.1

Cperatives (including

transportation): 20.7 23.4 t .Q

Other Blue Collar: 29.1 41.1 acm

Farm Workers: 1.0 2.6 C.4

Service Workers (except private

household) : 13.4 29.0 lt .6

Private Household Workers: _2.0 Sa A Re pees SF Se

TOTAL: 100% 100% 190%

; Occupations by Ethnicity and Sex - 19°

Non-Latin

Latin Black whites

o

Female

Professional & Technical: 6.5% 8.7% 16.9%

Managers & Administrators 1.8 1.0 $.§

Sales: 3.8 aca 9.6

Clerical 27.7 16.9 44.4

Operatives:

(including transportation): 38.1 10.2 ee

Other Blue Collar 4.2 2.3 rp

Farm Workers: 0.6 2.6 0.4

Service Workers:

(except private household) 13.4 29.0 14.6

Private Household Workers: a % Lae 5 De 2 ees

TOTAL 100% 100% 100%

ILI Grand Jury Selectio rocedures.

Chapter 57-500 as amended by Chapter 70-1000 Laws of Florid

provides that the Circuit Judges for Dade County shall devise the Grand

the names and addresses of a number of person with whom he is acquainted

and who meet the statutory requirements for jury service. A list of

five hundred such names is collected and the names are placed in the Grare

Jury 5ox. The judge in charge of the Grand Ju

Jury Box a sufficient number of names to constitute the Grand Jury.

Throughout the period 1973 - 1977 and prior to that time

there were no Circuit Court Judges of African or Latin Ane rican descent

in Dade County. At the present time, out of 46 Circuit Judges there

is only one Circuit Judge of African descent and none of the Latin

American descent.

As more fully set forth in the attached Affidavit of Mr

Joseph Kelinson (Exhibit 8B) and the attached chart Demographic °

Characteristics of Census Tracts of Circuit Court Jucges (Exhibit &)

the Circuit Court Judges tend to reside in census tracts where th:re i.

a low percentage of persons of African or Latin American Gescent.

Judges like all other people tend to reside in neighborhoods consisting

of residents of the same race and socio-economic status.

What becomes painfully apparent is the fact that there is

a vast source of discord with regard to the lack of a fair cross-section

representation of the citizens of Dade County to serve as members of the

Grand Jury.

The Dade County Community Relations Board has conducted

numerous hearings and has done considerable research on this precise

issue or complaint. In December, 1976, the Dade County Community

Relations Board undertook discussion of the problem "Is the Grand

Sury composition an unfair representation of the community?” (See

Exhibit F).

Again, in January, 1977

P * ~meems ©or Doalaria

, the Dade County Community Re.ations

r?

Board had discussion on "The selection process for the Grand Jury Part

Iz”. (See Exhibit G).

In March, 1977, after full hearings and discussions, wherein

numerous prominent and learned individuals were invited and, in fact,

did speak, the Dade County Community Relations Board published its

Special Report No. FY-77-3, with its findings and recommencations. The

Report speaks for itself with regard to its findings of disproportionate

and gross lacking of representation of identifiable minority groups

(See Exhibic H).

In addition thereto, see Exhibit I, which is a.City of

Miami Resolution, which was adopted to “urge the Grand Jury Commission

to take steps which would insure greater participation on the Granc

Jury by our dlack and Latin citizens”.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the problea

complained of as enumerated in this motion is one of wide concern and

applicability, and coursel most respectfully feels and requests ‘act

"

this most Honorable tribunal consider all of the aforementioned

allegations, pleadings, affidavits, exhibits and proof to determine

this most justifiable issue.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that a prima facie

case of discrimination has been presented and it is praved that the

Court would dismiss the Indictment or, in the alternative, hold an

Evidentiary Hearing and order disclosure of the sought after discovery,

and require the State to now offer credible, sufficient evidence to

overcome and rebut this prima facie case as established.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the fore-

going was delivered by mail/hand to the office of RICHARD E. GERSTEIN,

State Attorney, 1351 Northwest 12th Street, Miami, Florida, 33125, this

-y

= day of Panis : ee.

ey, submitted,

' ~

r

V0 \ a

wR a. “STAROND— ESQUIRE, of ~~

PENCELL & DIAMOND, PA.

Douglas Center, Suite 602,

600 Southwest 37th Av enue .

Soeei Gables, Florida, 33134

Telephone: 448-4496

7)

17 ae

. AFFIDAVIT.OF NATHAN DIAMOND .

STALL OF FLORIDA

coun.Y OF DADE )

Ss:

BEFORE ME the undersigned authority did personally

appear NATHAN DIAMOND who after bein duly sworn upon oath

deposes and says:

l. 2 ama member of the Florida 3ar and servec as

trial counsel for and on behalf cf Marvin

Florida, Criminal Division, in tne case of State of Florica,

Plaintiff, vs. Marvin Francois, Defencant, Case No. 77-28650

2. On January 3, 1973 I filed, on behalf of Defendant,

Varvin Francois, a motion designated “Motion to Dismiss tne

Indictment Based Upon the Lilegal Composition of the

for an Evidentiary Hearing; and for the Discovery of Certa:n

as Exhibics “A shru C” Said exhibits were filed contemvoranecusly

sith, and were referred to, in the sai¢c sotion A trse and correcs

copy of said exhibits, as filee wich one Clerk of the Cisgucsc

Court are attacnec herets

weer

NA nA blew

My < caission expires:

AVERAGE UNDERELPRESHITTATLOL

OF PURSCUS OF AFRICANA

DEXCINT = 67.4%

AVERACE UNDERREORESINIATLION

OF PERSONS OF LATIN ANERICAN

pescir = 73.5%

i

7

RACIAL COMPOSTTLON OF DADE COUNTY GRAND JURY

GIILPAL. MUISITHN NH Crea eee ACTUAL DISVARITY BEWI2i

YEAR POVULATICI VATED S Mersey) of GRAND JURY RA. VOVERS 6&6 GRAW JUKY

: an VL 3B U, 4B tl. aA UU, wn aL *B tL

190 15.2 |23.6

EST 4

1973 syn imp) 13.08] 8.0 | (ese) (ust)

eST 7

1975 (fath) 13.03}, 8.0 | 4.00] 3.08] OF 4. me. ____|100.09 45.6%

°-— =a@- 02 aumpe ++ GaP ae=e oy One ed Ged bed peed oa —_ _—-| 4 | » a

. ‘ ts? 4

L974 (syn ivy) a 13.58] 8.0 | 4.00] 3.00] 4.30] 4.31 ___ | 67.09 45.69

- rst

= ; 1974 (fall) | hs.su{¢.0 |4.on] 3.08] on |a.zs] | {100.07 45.

1915 (quiny) 14.19] 8.93] 4.00] 3.08]on [ais] | __fioo.on 51.24

1975 (fan) 14.14 | 8.98 | 4.00] 3.08 | 4.38] 08 | 51.2 1008

1976 (sy invy) 13.00 110.2% | 4.08 | 3.08 | 0.79 | 08 ___ | 37.0%} 008

‘es os al =| _—_ eee + - . = el -

| } 1976 (fa!}) 13.00 0.28 | 4.00] 3.08] 4.3fox | |__| 68.52] 1001

- L |

1977 (sqm ivrs) { 15.2% 2.60 | 4.08 | 3.00 [t3.08 | 08 14.54] 1008

(EST) (EST)

ieliaad 14.5 38.3

%. LIGIMG

COUR? OF

THE CIRCUST

ra

=~?

CIRCUIT IN

FLORIDA

bd

mT ore

ee eS

STH

LEVE

AND FOR DADE COUNTY,

bY

OF FLORID

THE STATE

2CN

Civis

CRIMINAL

Plaintisé,

‘a

CASE NO.

-Vs os

e\

or

,

\

(Judge Seker) 2517

ee Ferme

coat mete wit

-

.

-

-*

Defendcan

-~ oF

ta wet

_—* ar

i -

ee ee

.

—__- -

-

.

mtu we

—~

.

S

“ vf:

a) > eae

e =e %

7 2

an enh”

th ee

" mF

te -

’

“ ree

0 pe!

4 -”

a2¢

“ og

“ oni

4 SR

; ar

S' 28

a 7%

oe % ¥

-_

wore

~Deae

wd

ve

——

AFFI DAVitT

My name ig Dr. Samuel S. Shapiro. I ama statistician

F + *

and am employed as the chairman of the Department of Mathe-

matical Sciences at Florida International University, “i:ami,

Florida, 33199. I have had prior experience as an expert in

o ‘ . es .

3 “case involving racial discrimination in the U.S. Feder

we

-

court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and have testifiec pre-

viously in Dade County regarding discrimination in Grand Jury

- ¢

« a “- - . *- . ‘ . ~

Based upon the cata suppiiec to me dy stephen siecnanic,

‘ - _ - - - - = o

snzcan is appencec to this statement, EXALOAS BB, lave ce.er

. -

- enanakh eww of * - - - ° | - ? = e om

~ne prooaoisiey cat Cue prepertion of biacKxS anc wadtians Cuno

tne oh “eanA "ary €or eh ears aAir2z2eed o~ 4 L. «= » —_

«¥e :e «err w~ we ~“-+ te ’ ~~. 2 - ee ee ave ~~ isc

vom a random selection cf registerec voters. tre $f il:

. mow ~* _ sele e-n- ~ eT) e » ? -\e« - - = ¢: . - or -

~ @ -; endace 2 ~ Tw ores ware” - ~ ote he ~~“. “* - - mwewe ~ ~

on - ‘ * - ac — . * ~ = ° ~~? ~~

che population of registered voters that averagec 12.7% dees

- - *. ’ - - ~~. -

-- 2ess ~naNn - - orf ess cebass ONS rid ce ~ “« a tac - -

The ecorresponcinge P onad | ew Sane ehaaciane aniv 2 Latins --

“+e wwe ptt nth ree, * seer! -~we CNOCS seep weee’ - or ae ee “*-

@ Tae ‘4 ‘ - - - - « a 4 ‘ ~

a population of registered voters that averages 7. %s is also

ee An? . ao Pa ene an -- : .

less than .001. Together as a group the probaosssty of secs

. i . ._* ‘ e y - r see e . “~ - ae

sy chance ONlVY se /dTINS and blacxs cut Of sacs perors Sue. vs

— » | - - até - - ¢ 7? = -

POpus.alt.on op. regi:steres voters ace 1p Of ~~ -3 ~acxs Inc

se P= h- en? > - - ~_- ” -

Latins 283 sar ies$ taan wVe ,neresore, one i nce .uce€e

- < . - * - * al

DOTA BSsaCKS GaesG Latins are uncer resresentec i 2. & >

.

> Ce “ yt ? - co *

oz Granc weuries

, *

~ Od ‘Rig —_——

ty y et ae / .

“Js —— er ~——_———

DE. SaBUCS S- Viidpos¥, %56-%

- _

™e ** +s “- = ~ = - - --

| WORN AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 3 cay Of Verooes sz :

—

'

NOTARY Pomrig STATE DF LCE De at Lace —_—,* ° —~ Ps

< / - P

eas acai “ - = 7 — . : ~ .

ay 2520'S) Soe aa 8S VedlH 325 a A on ~ath i cnt

>:

Pepin tae he sath SRE sOcarvy pPuo.ic .

.

‘

.

.

‘> - -

Ae Pe

. wt ama

-_ al - ll ~~ - -

o=s a ° eta es a mn PLR

“ne, Po. ot ott ts - oi ae * aa” od. = sd - = a %.. — - \ ie

MAME

CATE OF SIRTH

7RANCO, MICHACL J.

ANS, CAROLYN H.

RAD, GERTRUCE G.

CRAWFORD, WYNELLE

Chin, HORACE é.

AKEAMAN, JCSEPM

T\INES, GROVER C.

SOKS, CHARLIZE 3.

eye

eal ~~

DWN, ALYIN

2PS, SCYNE MECFORO

$3

Onmetre a em, -——-*

ORTON, CHARLL. c C

ase 22 re af

‘ABAY, CULYUE

ENKEN, HELEN

ee Et

reTTS, RICHARD

“me Mee *- ervre -

JRENO, MARGA> SUE

-* “ye . “

SoMAOVIC, $i™ ‘

mere soa 4 ? 8

J!) bmee Bomar

_——-aste en teurrerr @

~'Mudeits w i) Py ae

"opmr!: £8 CHASLES &

_—-— Ff - ——-<

ac - * a

OSE, SAVID - nas

“_ "Fer

Oe eed

° SUPNAMES

10 BLACKS

LE A

>" anes e —

. ee se adh al sanwer OF ere;

Ae SeX aac CATE OF SIR TH

| ‘

= * | ; +? "ef

STOVER, ANN ¥ | ? j * >-3-30

‘

{

a+. — - -

COGFER, R. BELVIN bd 4 2-28-23

}

~neere -— - j , - *”

GAEENGP, SSaARD C. “ “ 3-13-22

'

nn ye

MOORE, PHIL be a 7-03-07

- ~-"- -

PALANT, i129 “4 a yep elil

as -~. wee te = - .

SELCSER, Vici’ oP &- , a 1 -s- :

_ ee en --, - . “as

ZLANCRARC, TOnd - v a 271228

“*. - * 4 -

sonar, Mad " “ 5-<9-'0

~“—"F me eh i Bali - . . -

si Mets vs) soe .. . a ” poe yess

oyne -« « - °= 9°

NEYOER, SAELEN 8. - $012.23

.2 eee eeu : ‘ Es

Jarre, aa aR , e 3225-25

LUSTGAATEN, BRUCE A. “ “ SeZZ03

ranean oer = rr. . 4

ro. smut =e shee "=e oe “ — 4

rf ue - me - = --

RCSHES. SOUNGRA G. st

rte - -~_ menwwmene - *

Pile iw "Ped iea iA@ ° ”- Ze oe!

7 _*-* “—. 8 e . **

oe @ARa «gg Maat vo. - a ~-Oeey

re * -~ -~* _-

ou” uN, at ot be ww. be a Se" he

: a

J “ “ et liei¥

~~ Aero me ——- - - -_ - A“

- MPSCN, Séiol 3 . . "eres

AN LESA. ESAIN SC. “ « 2-16.88

6.0..aM%. a. “ 3 --oees

BAXLEY. elica cha 5 S¥ Gue $6: tasa>7 1€2 ent oration

(ENCE A, S.OALA M. ine 2 Sify 250 25 Snisul*:c*er nforzasicon.

Ps

~~ “a. mesure }

* aie ett Deets

Cise Sun

|

‘

é

'

'

-” 7 ‘ a= -@

aad

~~

pa

ot

espene _ nero —se=- «8 ~*-

NAME Se “ee CATE CF SIRT

*

. i ' a2”

' ‘

"eS eee del Th Me tal

Ois0, Le UNARS - | M : 7 3-75-38

“* = acer

PONER, JOSEP T. r 0-0-17

‘

anon a 2 Sei a! ” ae

~ioA 10, PATRICK J. ! § I ” 2-25-12

. |

+e - -_- * i - ; e en

JASPER, iMELMA | r ; a §-30-22

'

*mase. . ‘ -—- . . «-

ARMALT, SCSEPH 4. ; _ @ lel Fe3

i '

*. A “sear rcrn i ‘2 «“. .

ALMETSA. FRANC S09 } a e*ases

-- ' - -_- -

LSS “ . 2*60°3

" ¢ «A

4 “ ei zeus

~ArAye ’ 7 freee = - “

SOROUGHS Jr 0 OF wee oe “ i a celse é

’

-_- = - ’ - 7 -_*

ae Eo se “ a eo "sd" c«@

mere 2 -~ «an _ - -

RAUL. eee Laat) ad “ sei "ee

sstengr see wre : .

-* ‘* ome @Citce & “Fo a > eae” -

MC GAREY, MARY ; “ “1s S89

* “a eT . .

QMS LLER. OP. AwM 6 ha e ="iw*io

Ane ~-s- - - _°

tur PENSeNG, dsr '8 we “ a _*t*

sea) ,fe° “y - eh es

Ps Rilowe , wait 7 g? ' SG

a e e e - _ - es

ea lME whee tlanal - " a eo* ea te?

- . “se -- - “a -?

[P@inds SUSEKi 3. “ a Sec Zé

~-eae8 ~e-ane @ » «an

"Nese Sae%ER ™ “ e > G°ve

e oo ° o= o :

AUMAIS. uw. ZENARD . e*uea?

TARTC#Ea, SCHN ’ ‘ 1-527

—_ Apre ~< eure « '-2 «9%

“UMP Sud, VANES 3. “ ” o* te

an Kek, PA S$ : : See te

’

TKO LATIN SURNAMES

30 3LaACKXS

'

‘

} i

.

-

” -- -

"ea

NAME

VANN, HAROLD 3.

a al

UBITH a.

ENE, J

Suvi °

- ~,

eR,

LLAGe

“*

wr

“

wwe te ee

~_— wee

aot e wet

“,

ed

teen

. Nalte

GilLk. OANIEL «K.

- anen *) SCytens

veMARCO, —< ANDER

¢ *wite weet wo

we owt, --

‘

‘

>

>.

a)

t

a

--.

mi)

on

ay

am

to

GaAANG JURY - $°2

NASE

KRONISR, LilN

MOONEY, OT7TIS A.

LANGER, SIDNEY 4.

GAYNOR oMILTON ™.

SCLEN, SUNYON OS.

CANNON, AUTH C.

CUASSY, NANCY

COLEMAN, DAVID C., JA.

CORNELIUS, EUGENE C.

MALPERN, FAYE 2. ¢

~areernm *

© eee °

mm SMaNN. wew'Few vs

-15 - .

meNAY, os wu

oe - - i

~wtewe we MKS

2NAMES

vw

~~

"

"

Six

PMILPITT, MARSAALL

CAESAR, JACK R.

STURM, ANNE

CROW, PATRICIA L.

ARGO, JAMES TROMAS

SARNES, A. DCUSLA

mor Feet we

CoNCE SMA! ; $

“ees oe? AG 2 -

whos » Siw%e a.

‘

“ranee .

—~— ow AY, ANN

“meee thee “ere 3

wewA Ni weed » “-* “- fe.

ww Rod » Bet” “se

-7cert - - °

a” sisete ww “.

—~Ay? or yre 2

TW 5 @ - .

_—-_ sfrus) *

= 4 )e ‘ ~ ee

“er, “= a oe ee

$Reuew' s MwwMee te @-

. a ee

+ . | a -* ~ > ‘- .

POLANSKY, RANSY - Unesie 25 ‘centity ¢

-

~ -meer « mere oom

HIE ne oe SUASAMS

reo ew

wet SAGA

“ve

"

BRA wlRt

© SP Sew

MAME EX RACE CATE OF SIATH

** - i °

BUCHANAN, FRANK ™. ; 4 ; Be21-19

OZETS, OLIVIA S. | F 1 Wf 2e21-50

i

ANDREWS, JOYCE £. i tow | 294Q033

CALMOUN, oMIKE v a ee St

COGDELL, WALTER C. / oo” a ee

’

CORNELIUS, HELEN A. | oF ok $--20

PEtSn, SANIEL 8. » ) * : $-15-36

PtncsEa, DAVID fo os ; 2-75-34

FRITZ, Caan £. ‘ | # “ 5-29-53

SITTLEMAN, SOSE?% oy < 5-521

RENAY, “MARGARET : : 5-23-33

JASPER, AARRY “ < 2-12-06

SCHNSON, LILLcaAN SM. . “ .e 5-06

MAWNER, MARCIA J : . 3-28-28

KOCH, SACK 8 . - 15-12

LEaFELST, JAN : ~~’ Tai Set8

Longo. €. cOM% - ‘J 3-11-28

waaay, <.MiCHAEL | 4 “ 3*22-357

Smita, TOMAS v , : o*5-28

STOKES, WALTER J ” F 9-19-32

sSR, Aik. A. EE “ “ 2-7-28

eCRONER, “URRY “ . 3-21-22

30 Sats:! SUPLAMES

TEREE BLACKS

‘

|

. : i

.

*’

-

EXEIBST °D"

*

. ?

eeLaaseriz

My mame is Or. 2au) &. Neumann, ! am an Ass

Garector of Exserimental Training in tne Desartment ¢

cf che University of Miami. {[ am a statist:

= the gracuate level.

:

3esed udon cata sudslied to me Sy Stepnen Mecnanic ‘cr the

rali, 1373 to Soring, i$77, inclusive, a copy of wnicn }

SAIS aflacavit, © nave calculates tne orctadiiity chat 2

of Slacks and Latins actually reoresented on tne Dace Ccu

Grane cury curing imete e1cnt periocs resresertec ov the

Reve been rancomly selectec from @ ocouletion witn the ¢

* Glacas anc Latins as reoresentec in tne cata for es°

- al . .

- “ ~ * - -~ ee - * .

1 w@Ge@ LOUnty, oric or we @1gnt seriocs. . "ave ce

- -_- mart" se@ ao onemem me é é 2 =

és th orocesi : ~¥ « Oe SME COMSCS SION OF THe “Erandée vu

.- = “ a > J nes ° -

~'@S$@ DSerices represents a rarcom selection '$ iess than

. . -

- - - * ” - ey

sess _ én rT yve in one-tnousers. any procas? i ~J c es

tm ome-huncred *s consicered a statistical vesisniticane

form enmance 7 ea? re, . * *6 ap’ at "se a a aue

se - se ei Wee «= & -

are sign: ficartiy on¢ererenresentec in tne cotmcosition <

* - > 1 _ -- - “- - — . > | ‘oO 77 en

~OUNCY » Geica orang vuried tor the perssée ra@it, ~avis <E

‘a

atide

— “4 7

a

- —

7 ——t -— —

~le rdut -* ce +e

ee.ee aS xe *-

seNs& VF FLURLCA )

a. he aa - “Ff ss

ee - «Mew }

€+ ened he ae oh S dew ad Aacehae Bee oe Ph nen

~*@ @83 Se@.0Te © <238 << Je SaewvGs, oF “es a

?.Of.Ga.

= s

J -

é .

Sasesa Sut?

‘

.

ba! o“ “a : . ° -_ -

a Oe ee YS ee

SAME SzA 2ACE Care CF Slave

FRANCO, MITHAEL J. oy i oy 1e2Gett

SVANS, CAROLYN 4. | ig |} gzeggezg

RAND, SERTRUCE G.

SaAEan, “CRACE =

AKIRMAN, SOSZ>¥

SARNES, SACVER ©

sorrye “year °e

SRUUKS we MP wee

“aun

wi *Fewse

Mt Joo be ’ -

c*wrty?* ctmre

‘wlewoe o@ w*

ee e -_- .

- _- i= > wf

- ‘~~ —--— . + el cl .

-- - - ~-«

-~ Sans -

a _—<—-— * * -<-<

Od mente a a? -- “gener ey a -- weer

eeee oo fee ” "85 2 wo oC" © b -s@ <o —~

- -_ —ee ~osmere seee

‘~~ a - a+ ae et — eo

‘- i “<=

Oe ee

'

.

.

cm

‘

©

on

'

o-

‘

np eA

ba a ; ow *'s* 59

- ms _*

“ ” &*wee oe

J

J

;

an

¥ “ bel 7c

4 - seusess

“ « 5-7Se.5

. ‘ *-2¢-is

be - .o%GeFse

>. P — Pend

" * .6°caeus

. “ Zegs*se

4 “ secs-c8

> d ‘Geb?

ha 7 ey ee)

“ ‘ seeyue oe

¥ . ee |

= “ re

“ - bets, eta

cc ens ow orna s : Gh

TOVER, ANN 5.

CSOPER, AR. SELVIN

= —7 « --

SbatMite MMe, vans: Tw m6

=7@¢..2°2 7

sahete

eeaeen aeures

UESOun, VEtsE “%.

“row ene - s27*73 :

Pu Aitieae whee - =* *

sAcurs e*. nme @

Rwotta%, ewite"FA S.

ro et ieee

eM Were ceo

- “<* >

“. a | -- ** a

-e -

le ee ee

. "se “* .

Crwae™ wo, mhe A.

sty:

en ee ee

“wn oes -

tate A.

.

— . ~~ merteueere

« 10%, we ee ee

+ - =* «=

week ~ wat eee

«

32

‘

‘4

‘

“--

--

GARDNER, SCSEPH TF.

CESARANO, PATRICK CS.

vASPER, THEM

ARMALY, cCSEP* 4.

eseurre oa

. “White eee

SS ~t— +a =

oe ue ' - “a =

wee tee oo ~--—-

-apfee i al on.

--7) -—~ +9"

simone “es

ee ee er en nT

Clad 222 eoyv

by BANE! » Van

. -- _-—— ..8

Mewead sy AR. TUR

“e JR --. 22n

oe ee®@Fha @:

es “-- sotesoe

al “ Se e+ Se VAR

“1S a5 roe

eB. wenn v

-. “eer “2 «

“ ¢ . es -

‘ wits wring --

. -- oe -

aPicl a” ro: «

_— ~ + =~mwer st dere ree

a) One aren ee er ee)

em Sf ete

a

. .

a

33

——— se ee ee wee we ~ +

‘

“~

‘

“ne

‘

7

io

Sree we

‘

e*Y

a.

34

- * -

am on asae aaee & _

NAME tA Ate NATE OF 312.4

a

‘ ;

. . ' ‘

| {

see . a 2 ' - - -

(ANN, RARCLO &. ¥ , t § 27215

‘ ‘

on - aenctr { } : ~

LUSOSS, CARS a M. | be ; a i C-0-22

tel) . . “* _ , . - -

ba NAUGRTON, VIRGINIA | Pr | 7 ,o28es0

' '

anes em, , j P | en

GAESNE, wei if Ne - } “ 3 tel Ge $

!

“ - 3-0-25

; '

' '

“ - 7-25-86

” . 3-2-2)

¥ : 12-342)

“ ‘ 12-6289

eae --.arrt = . -~2 +a

ss ~~ = , “a eee, 2%i4

en Gillan ‘a oecentne a o cae ee

SUSESMAN, Sia-Sice 8 ° - é-6"

enue oe, oe@ a “ae -

owe Res a a « e*e:%is

aan‘ “esaane® ¢ - ‘ i

RORGE,. SoorGs wv. 4 . o3Ue\3

se am aeee « @ - —

nos suo se @- 4 a 22 S°*te

ASE8, MCATON ’ ‘ tele

amencN, “at “ “ jeljoss

SSRAEFIR, MARSCR.e . J<5-:3

‘rrr -_*me * ; : = ~*

eGeAi%, Fuve 4 "4 a ve ets

--, -. - - - *“s.

SU ESMAN, cENLNS 3 . z+ £-<2

QA. SON, SSARLES 4. be “ $< 8-25

“toy oP Re “ * 3°61 @66

Ae +a ~+.r ee = ~ ‘nm 9

4% a 4° . or 8a - a 3° ~*%?s

Oee°*%. SCAN © «MS es ‘senci*y su@ 36 {8Se* ene int srras: sr

$°wON, SAMUEL oUnasie to ‘Genii ty ss@ 53 1MS~ 4setens informacion

wrens ae

one ey - eal

NAME SEX RACE oAi= CF 3

*

i . o

ot ee ha }

Views SANIEL - “ a be} 723

'

cw ‘ene “t= j e } Se

SMITH, VANE SEVIER ? P 8.21.28

} '

}

teeyore es 7 | ; - ‘-

JACKSCN, 4AROLD ©. ™ a 5-21-16

r naCS t. fysare : } : e 9 %@4

VEMAACS, ALeXaANCER J. ™ a 5-3-1

'

P = ' !

“=: yer - ie ea

SIMON, VaR LLYN | = } a GeJe33

_*-——- | - . -

¢ wasiss 2 1021-29

“sf «= - a an

SSURGE 4%. 4 “ 3+ll-32

eure - -

o wl «- “ «“ 7°210eC2

---2@ = nd | ee | =: = > - *¢

ewes sooee"S& i -. P - -o-

-- . “mem, - “hy ek

ws BR cs. o'er “AN Ge “ J o*s? <

— «+. - ~ - - - a-

SP MSMiUU, <=" . a dt hak

FOGARTY =e vy ae : “ 4 . 72099

sARLoA, wil n -) - 5011-26

HmPALSON, Eowaal A. “ a Se3o 3S

n~naee o2% 22 «@ a . « «

"vwuesSea s eo MRese bs, whe “ a -i-22

~- . er — . -. -~2 “~-

aUSsn, --~ o- “ a o*%és ®hoe

°fre --.- ’ . 7 *

ow . wean! “ | a ejese

4 a we@wels

° a o*% ed *%65

. “- “+e - “ ~

comets Suet A. _ - woQe'§

aaetwne - «-<+« - _ «2 «0

PRINCE. SUSEAT 2. VA. " - $-26-26

- mene _-e* “ - - -_«

se MMM, Swrt 2 a e*<e*% se

e. ecce =. are+e - " . «

ews X%e en oem cutee ug a S °.38

ae rt “ee ers oot

ee ee ee ee ee ae

——eo “~—* + ~e.

Se

6

35

VARNEY weh 7 oF eo SY ota ae.

KRONISA, LEDN z a ee ee ot:

MOONEY, O5T2S A.

a. “ F 0-6-9

GAYNOR, MELTON ™. “ / 7o8e

m<s . am - _ ’ : a @

CantCn, RUTH C. ne a5 do 3a?

fr seay seuery ' 2 , - -~*

wereS' » Writs: ’ a 2°e:

mm) Tyee ee ‘- “ +? «A

COLEMAN, wRted wip whe : a "ou

mamaec tre s)reur ° “ -

weetitiwe soy soa-3S ws a w"P

e, «ee eye - . s

“ALrisn, omYs 2. é * ed

ere weery aprevere : uv oo oe

“ALlMaA 0, ew Maw > ” d*%e°%e

“ws - . “ - ++ «eo

al wy, ee We - “sie

“Ase =: ¢=ue . 4 “ - 6

ibs, oe RNS a a2%,3e

- “= 7 > - 7

Rs aS « Jet ”- *.*

tren. : 2.78

tSSATON, ANN ¥ 501S0

ee —— . os - ~

Memes, ge:.f wean , “ 2°s°

oere: or, - “ ._ 26.

‘a Yeue se -—~“— ww. a e® ios

wevot “sorses> s Se \fes

= are PF er Ne a ei =

we -—- - esr ov 2 bs te :

coon” ¢ of erece «. - -

O20. 2ALs4 # “ , *Ge

——*-. -_ .

ower *, aee0e “ . 9

SStGS2, ALcSAi “. . ow

-«-* J Secs

AARC AR, SoM. e 7%

eon nnn «mesentery 5 “ _*.

ww te. Sscatco a - -

.

-- “-~—=—ae cc ger tauete

Co

mo

|

Re tanta

“)

— ase. a, :

biti, Mansaal.

SurLe

CAESAR, SACK 2.

STURM, ANNE

CROs, PATRICIA L.

ARGO, JAMES TECMAS

PRR ege oer e::e

ews tie & MANN, “ve

“ne ——_ eaare -~

CORSE: :, SeorGe &.

Peseeey ee

weet, AIM

wane te seaaae

ee ee

ar ere —_—_ us tr.

wwhoa&: . VPRew

2SEePR *s "AY -

eK Siserte wes M-

meee

s C

<4

-——~— eel

~._* -. -~—*- «-

.

ink © ‘~@ we ' de s.

-_—_— ~met

wate o tw PReuw

NESL, “ar.Y &

=e, “= ereese 205%

“-

mem eee —-—

‘ - -

wwmrti an Me 7

o came - “=,

> ~AUVeo

~o wweeres = -—<

e Se “<*n-2

. -

“* saecte _-—<'=-

-

-

—_"*

cea

ae

rr enwevy ~eery

’ Sk

J2i se gae

Cc. en.

TAT Srwa o1

-~ = ef

veveiS

- = “7

P

wee sl

9.°9.32

:

6° 'e%'«

1 98 49

i

- = «ef

/-6-35

* = 33

. "oe “~~

‘n° 44 48

J* ia?

"+ «2 -a

~ ("=

~- =

~ *e 6

J@ 19025

-+-

77s

a -2 “¢

o*we*se

om 2 *e

- a

» bated el

- «2 «A

* _-

~~ ~=-

- =e «8

- -

eo *te"~a

a th 26

=

s°. sec

eo «-s

-

eee 5s

oe ta ee

.* 2°57

° -

°“ «#92 3

-

- « °

-*- ~

7s"

e a “6

2 _@

=*'s

-r

* .

—_

a

as ‘ PY ty. Paw +289

GRAND CURY © SPOLNG TEs 3377

eal - aese ~aace - 7

NAME Sex cACE CATE GF SIA8TH

. ° | 7

ame Sl Tie -

SUCHANAN, FRANA . + s 2-21-33

'

e@ ¢ 4 *e i - -

C&="s, OL SViA - Fi | ? a 2-2) -30

'

nec.¢ = scaAyes 2 : - >

ANDRESS, eOYCE =. i - “ 7019033

'

J

nme Are *ye ’

LSU . M.Ke \ “ a sei 392)

'

. teen amit i

SRYAN, be esARD MARY “ “ SeQe22

-anene ._7--* j «- -

we tiwieaes Au. Ss” «© “ s -23-29

mma tee - =. «@ - ‘ as oe

ORNEL SUS, HELEN A. ° . 3-4-29

“mt. meant = - . -

Pewee eMilecen Se ¥ ” :- sels

eruwr -*- mene - - - -

Fee eA tow “ = &* S-l-

‘

esse ce 2 - - an 2o

“ei @e erat s. - a 2°S29°98

osm oyn26 ‘moe °o 2 a8

an <M . wwon”™” 4 * -*9°76

RENAY, MARGARET ©. ; §-29-38

srsrts, mmre! a. . “ - _* sels

om ~ . . - om me

eoANSun, shee beue Rs ° a] °iS°*v=

CARNER, MARCIA SC. : ‘ 5-26-25

—-- “+ - 2 @e ca

Awe ts vw b -* “ a sti e%'%

Tape: *° 2ue ry Pe Fes

oe see » wMits “ e,eei3

“s+ - ‘726 ss. 8 ee)

ww Swe o+ wont ” a s° ad end

-* ®* «te _- - -_- -_*

seitaaY, w.NiaArsea “ ‘ o*ha%o!

al -—. -_ *. - a-

Smits, Tecvas “ . s*¥v*®éS

a _-- ‘ - -

2: UAsSe aruw-.s4 « 4 - 32 oe. <

oa « -<- a @- é_

Frese e. -*F o% eoe “ . i -.*

-ene* or -* -

acres. : rhb 4 id os S °

—- -_ oer meme tee

en ee ee

~- -- °.«

SEPSES 3LACKS ,

.

o —

35 ;

3 ps

F

~

~

a)

—

See

_—~“— +o

an id

Oe eet Thal

com

amon omnes

-

~~.

“

_—— om.

S$ s46Ce

“

CENSUS TRACTS CF C:

CRASs

OF LASIN

~e

s

SLACK

OF

CENSUS

oak ~ a ay

oi

o

=

-—~

—-—4e

~ oe We

TAIN

ve.

az

.

a

_*

~~ 8A

mmo

oT. ee

AS

.

-

~~

>

ancora

DADE COUNTY

Ci2Cvit €

2204

9220 Sw 59 Sx.

JORN

o@ -- e4 rT oo “ a ] et p tt 1 ia |

. . . . ' . . . *. . . . .

wy ira) “) -t et ov et “oo “” ~ “Tr Los |

«ft «ft «ft *t 4

” bd a" ei Ta | ats “ ar ' a Oo “? oo”

’ re “ om ' r i “fr t- ra A 4 wy t-

’ wy m rs) ey “yy *? t- fa Qo ~ “?

. * * * . . . * *. ;* > . .

‘ » wy “w t oy ‘ ” «4 a wv “y |

«t «4 ' ft *t Pa |

“ “” “> ite) ” > ‘ ad » ”? “ uw “

o ' Ls oOo a] a oy -r t- _ « a. a

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

a | wo © oo 74 “© oO o t \ @ t- "ny wy

4 t ea ra re r ‘

cr ae] ca oy -4 t- ) hd or «ft Lie |

. . . ' . ' . . . . . . .

© © © o ot “> 4 o o oO oo

co

tt a re | 4 «t f aa a” a ca

a 0 0 Oo a | o oO a] o 2

. . . . * . . . . .

“Tr oa -? «tt rary et | ie] aa] of «oo ow oe

w -@ w ww ' »” um wn t- a ' '- ew

OU

4 ta

ei oo ‘ °

te oO ” e | 7s

en ") . > - “f

mu vw . ay ft ‘S) 3!

" nm 3% i. mn (* 7]

t* - be] i Pe ") i | ‘3 w u)

. — whe ~ he ad Bike m el « hi ni ‘ . oO

-f te fd be erg few wte 2 aw % mt 4 . tea m

yo pe 8S elt “ Sn Us wow -t 820 FW #@ &U YO

ee ee i ee a eo ome UD ok .

' a) “< e2 fen 0? mee a o "9 othe $ Oe wi be

a) ra fiw had ' hi bee ew = ii @ as A yw 72 6)

ft «vf 4 et eet bee « # °9 wet | wD > hi@ Y \)

” . * “ ont sag eas 3 so oe

M4 i ”~ 3 fey * 3 32 mM os a 4 .3 ow |

“ hd 3% “i “ non Pw ‘3 mm uo mu no

w "1 | Ro. < me Met

no > wo hire tow oe 2° ™ “oO os wr saw pees co

“ ww mt > pers am at oh etn t1wo es] sia te 4 hier

et veo «aw O09 @|N Of ~o em Ore beady «f+ tT Oe

ttt. whiny tye me tH: 8 ‘yt. ec, 1, t% yo “oe yet fret

-~*

-—-

EDWARD S. XLEIN

1900 Sw $9 ave. 59.04

FRANCIS XA. XNUCK

60 Olive o2*° 16.02 - 38.0 $

om

-

'

“o

re)

ao

.

mere mm © eee

we eet teres edt

$330 SW 7 St. $8.02 0.1 58.06 $ 7,465 23.

FPsecws.s = °° 7?

nw MIS a -———

* = - * - 7? ~* “ . = - © ee¢e -

2390 “. Sisc. ~ ana. wee ~-—*-- wre i§.9 - ipgt Fe oe

7+ ee - eer Doewrertorre -- ~* -~ . - - - - - *

Saeseoe® We pews sett owed vs Vee oS. o %,Sre ..

efsa “s “n -

$640 SW SScn ave.

esceoct f22

Bele Mh

-_* —-» £2 “5 a+ - - A -** 2

27235 oA 37 St. @eVd ~“+- “- Pesos 3D a

- - we ee aoe

~~. aitens PARKER

= - os : — - - : .

odes | 289822640 Ave. See HS wee . ow a 7.

et en

ee ee

zann occ sc - - — - - . - - ‘ « _

s27UU of ve ee GS... “s os 726 ~ , =< .

en = —s.

en en 2 oe ed

. al ** ce on - ° - - - . = -

Li$30 N. SaVverncre vs. @eVd @ * oe «+%e .

“secer ow ee

TO a coe see Se me Sheet aw ne

**sec- es eke i - -- - - en e ¢ --<< “+

233i Ss. sévsncre wee ‘- 27S:@ rn ~ “-t- “oe

ctr - error

~e—— -~-* -_-— to

. @. . a ~ _ . c - _ . “_-—- -

$0 Ecscewater OF. 3 Leg ‘ Sli, ; 6.

~ marae = —_————-—

~~ ~ ~* ee ee

on? ‘awd -¢c . - = 7 - 2 % .

$335 * ‘oe > ds e - --3 Se - 7c3 ~.

‘sere = “** are

ee ree PF . + Meee?

“sr AH - 2¢é “2 - — - — * — . ass” e

os¥ VC@an ws. a) HPemccrasn.S arses oO hee > ~-@ Ca.cuett&

~~ mere te t=

~~ tee see oe

-pe os 42e = = - - _ a e* P .

2650 Sw 64 Cc. 72.93 O.2 -o $13,546 36

<i ee

se. ane 3165 © 5¢ nn? 2 e** £723 ‘

en ee asd e OFS o - ~«& ral S 7--—-* ~- .

.

, *

. . °

i

a

\

“- “_--

tt em e

=e o

sa°t

sc

~~ 2 wee

“oe +-—@

———-

S De

tr ‘

. ‘.u

’ ‘ ‘ i

oA

t .

, to '

‘ Re

‘ tt AD

ot te

co »t * 1?

bed .

"8 &

* " ¢ ww

wesw

4 a?

'

.

y

i.

v

vo

te

>:

"

tr

'

'

“I

’

uv

"

"

i

:

» 1

wort a &

*) ' t

s3 mt te fF

ear 0

ui"! te

aS | 0

nav "

' eo -

uu % |

mmet @

-b ot Of SS

“' » & it

41

~oF

-

SS

CsSunsy.-

~**

9

—@

-*

_—"*s-ece

-_—_—

———o

“

a 2 oe

7300

ace

=

=

-

~-

—— FO

—— — ee ee

ea!

—— “* =

- + -s--@

a

‘t

? *}

+? !

s’ 66

. <

ft

}

er

oar

of

4}

eb

%

—

*t

- *f

u

i

uw

uu

”

a

te te

mm U

°.-= soe

“~

———— oo

-

——s oer

{,

: uw

4

rf

Tt

+ ;

ecemce:

ia oo @

" :t ai 8;

at te stot

t* rt @

at “ul

, 2 8

tid os

i x a

* } r) er fe

‘ ft ‘ rt ',

: ! 1? ti '

ja al

tie ’ :

: 1 mt

7 A ty

: a a:

' e ' ot te

ut i |

ete t, °

: r| ~. @

el i* le i“

wi

q ef

tlt ‘ “oor

t; u 0

ule |:

' a) aoe

e;' ros wu

ine J “t

_ : et

te f Al \ '

) te #

‘ ru ov

el" sue ‘’ in

eo}! 9 i

| ae a o

ide te s5 te

| ‘ t u vs

ri * 6) ¢ "

i a3 of ty ‘et

ment y te 470?

i ’ sth t\.

a ee

i hihe : ie fh te

i, j ru “i ih +t 0%

ey 0 0 hs

vv i) fe oa'ge

“ht a ao a8

ot “ ‘ .¢

4 elie ¢ te ¢ « &

ot tt © -t “one

aw i oe oO

> i ue te et

” e fret & “<b th

a ff be go gt 9 gy fe

int 7 ty ote O

5.76

Pease

a) Oy

“eg

eS

--a

oa

ee- cS

_ ——_—: z

be ed

ace

-_————

“a -a ene”

oo

te

,

1?

’

ef

’

wv

"

*'

‘1

")

™ ’

3 ,

) !

thet

'

-. 0

trove

t

tom

7

?

v

° 5

Al

ae |

o-?t

, a

ou

‘ al

a

wt rt

es 3

'@

s &

ye et

"

Af

!

)

ee ee

stensi.ons.

to

“-

we

we "|

_~ _— ~_-

“=

eer

ee ee ee

¢

i

"

“i

{'

it

md

'

t

i

r

'

+}

al

+f

’

ff

”

iF 7

’ .

tf 1)

el! 1}

a] e

a te

a ”

t

-- "

tt

iu t

rt js !

oF e st ew FF I;

ere i '

ni ‘th - ow ©

eu thaey a I

ote ! Te ’

nue 0 Ow "

tp thay ome

morte aet Ot

~afu tnt) al

‘ar hee vu”

“8 tn mn ou

ote H sh thie [ue

in te 4 re | ee

th «te tw yen

st 8 ° 1?

+8 Ht ee "

>

=ae~s: -9S 7

~_———— = -

7

e

em

“ ?

.

“<= eee = sare

-- a Be

—-@ w see,

.-

-

"

~—-“—<-—- *

——_—_—- =

-—

—_

$s é

'

4

c=.7@

a

49

-~

—

—_———--

ed

—

. -

—————* ‘*

- “*

--2e = —

—- -—---o7

.

--

-—<—-rTt

s2cacs

,

---——-<-

?20c=ss

i

cnt Tews

ew ee

—_— Tr

——

—Lom

~~ ete

_— —

et ete Dat tee ee

-—<

-«--

a

rc ~~ «F a<~ -o ese -as°==s

— =~

~wwwlawwe _——.

“e. wre my ag . =-"ONS 3c >S5

—— ~~ ame ew . -_-~-

= oe remem neey sscretcc T°*2 ——s st ~~.

a ee er 5 — ee ee ee

ome <0 «ses eer tS as ee

-~--- ee eee ——— a +

®xsqzei.7e Sissccss

Communic? Belacisns 2cass

\

‘ce

ee tw eet ee

ite ene, Sepa

——

ag=zcs:s

} " ‘

\ |

} «

. e e- © ' . --

eues D a As on weet t- a” ” ba | | of On ” er }

’

" j

.

' '

’ ‘

3 a t

| " e a? '

i nt , a

{i . ou ) vu Ny

t} © un 9 - fy

'? u {) {| aa e "Tt '

’ te © ° * a aT

Vv : m it -” rT) +t I oye

al

" n i Pare f A oRihO hee =

u e ut Uo & ly " emmwuu “4

. tr ” 4 ~ oe ' UW m " ” i

“I u t ease - ‘! uMewWe

, ? ’ vnn " a an vo ‘

~ ty u e at . vw Poa) r } att \*

& eftuow & 7! ae? “a 2"! '

e © t ee oo A“ be vena ha La

a “ow © ef ur mm a te 4 H | ul ot Um et i

i! tr i} ir vw) a 0 ‘ ‘ 7 ‘ ~ t «! > Yv j

’ nove tN n ) . 4

t ' 1 ' ' bh ~*' © >» © th .

tr «A we. n at ewvnetn VU v yi we mp

nou eX ty conoevn ‘ . ’ rae 9 }

he ‘ia ‘ ge uet ab vu ne .

cs a Sean en . of ff ly het

wh tt. §683=6soute ey igus e & an He re

s ' mote te @ M ouol dl 0

ay | 45 tom OU fs ‘ {| . - & © ow a

¢ +t a U ft) o% & Oo

‘ team t " v te = ag Se

° . 3} RR ip ; Pa " oust ftehou

-t a U ebetetet -« . : tthaaae

i Ln Lt " i

A ° ° vy bid | "

’ he a

m v . He Aa pty tow

"

"

{| 6 ¢@ @¢ 2s !

ae eee ee

il a wt me ee

ex

weve

,

-

—-

—_

sc.8

*

.

"

Oo

»t

ft

*

*

tre oO

—

nges.

a

le

2.-#

’ selact

T3CB.+-

rea

7

4

——

~-

--

_

_e

-

+. @

aan

ae

ae |

as

os

cosa

e

xssow

sec.enc3as

-_

standasrcs ex

i a

as.

-——-

—re

> meses

—_-—-

*?

2.30°33

>

a-

=A

vaa

s eves

ave sasxsec >

t

_ career

eal estwas -—<—-—-

“Some cl cus SoLets- screcver, ave ‘ssc <8

che scoot. - - - 48 have 2sus6

28 <3

ce d:scssse enc heetsisSY «© © « ©

_- ol _

™sc citas <3 co s=>5 have cperates tS acysavs=s

sathes =an 72--"2"4 che tensions “at +7-->4 Lt

-

Reccst= c=. 8 Nationa. AcvYlscsy

ssmmeussicn CR Caves 555555855

*“. . . BS secens years. 6 szasé Susy 33 =

~ssticzeteen bas come antes ee ee

oasy wes asclisned i= Iagsess == L325 anc %2

also Seen abclisnes —— SY states = OU CoS

. 2 oe © Beweves, => sesa3 sasz cs =8 éaderas

systesa anc sany stats syscs-3 tscause <= s2ns tits ttsn3as

; srovisicns wnich cances Se eesity chanced. As lawy9s3

os _-= 9 ~~

chassec Sy ous Coss c2 Profzassicns- A255

with ass.3t—s = = tsoroveces= cf Lecal syste.

wa 2537 =<*% t2 rosclve ex.sc-—¢ F=-

gzané issy esc =: cpesacsss.”

°. .. tf cppressicn acc eenZlict are = ¢-ve awey

co hascry mc contest. wee way =-5> se fsusc <s

esesomiss Caltasae Css aesss within & issocuwc=sk

; cz selitzeal and ecsacmss “Ratf + + + * sre +3

encuch sctarslatac exper+saccs enscecrcet Se «cls

es saxe it Cless <hat Netsssgs=ateus serulstions oc

net nave <s Se sacec Wim ehe rrtSlscs c= te :

srsrscscs anc —=t2>57-sSP 2: 3c252=2532-s5-"

Racial and. Calssssa Mi tres:

sesivsi3 cf 2531-6552 => a ee

* -

Sussscn enc -Lo-es=

= _—

‘ . .

ee Oma SBFCTSE 549 OEP <92:5n =e

ew Se 0 eee ee

“—- ee eee ee rs

i A hh

ae Sere

c@ Sade Csoussy cass. ac iss

Ssepte=sses 1376 PS2.7eC Curiae .:t3 “lursices

2ssues* scs=-sn 2 es=msusie

~2ades, lates sx Ssoee8iets, =at

=@=.523 are =ct SR cane Sade

SSunsy grand sure = s@. “T:@ ¢cconsess

-3 [at Latin comes : oom and aliesatics

@xXi2= Secause eS, ee ee ee

-

- Se | -- =< _-= = ll -_—+ = eee -* = . - Sell on

a== ac 5 8 83-0 ater ae ~

SOS Nsecs, 82 er) manna w- ye a~n'. > E+ Sead ames

Wis Shas shesrteex-nc suscames save Sewn oecses 2= ob

Sse es tse tas = few Veer. Secs=3e =hev

EE ee ee ee ee ved

S¥ <Ses <sat ch: SaSPSSisy 23 te comflsct with crslessed

- » | 9 . : . s ?

SSClS2eS Sf ecmial “istics. A ets csace

=—.c28> ¢oacess

ec Sy cchers <nat te grand iurtes save nce

=

s

—"¢ SS the interests and -rece -4 -<6 Zac

a

é= 28tse

aes Seen rs

4

Seen rales

le

- — = 8 @ © eee 22 nese ==

Sani tY ang ork SSS> CDSS sty Ser rsse --a ttt PA

Sf tecert srend -:2+e¢ &=-AaF>3 “S Fetresens t2_v --«8

ror ~= nm =e

Wr238 =3.0@ Si2cle 2 4ee TTT a a

Steamed? Lio Sener 8 ean wm ween ---- -- 2 Co-3*=3%

alee es F8L2cingG TS its gtind cum sveces, Sve

Peo _—<- «= > ee _ _— — _—-- ~

—S2s25 “SC, S952 Ri-) This Vameelcny condition is the

- « ° + ge ge+ am —— | i ee a a eft te%« ‘ms

Sens@ GS @..eFacisn and exclusion believed erd fats: =v

~#ecer>s3 ct che Latin, 2lack, anz SSCS Csommunicy in ske

Sarect sarticipeticn end acein:iseracice SS cheis ssvecne

.

a os —— ee ~—+-

—— ee Se eee _

. - . is =o» e

. ° *»*

.

3. PeyesGs @ESAeSeG ws cecace =) ee Breed

cs is the ¢iscncsis Sy she Dace County fscSte- ty Relacticns

Scard chat ine scusce of this conce=n +3 T3 actsve Fes

¢spticn hele Sy represencat.ves of the Latin, Biack, enc

sccr commenitias hat the salect.sh == cts Sse

* 4 P "

Csuncy Grand Sesy System £3 555 .5582oosiste

ef a *3is coscesmeit 425 7S citi sens 53 538

ca “te Sace County crenc “Sttes Fecsrs.ng S2¢

and neees. c2caes@ Ss S/3TTTATIS exT-23+552 3

feom thers rice. 20K, @tEes CTLGlR. esCsnsm-s

eo22.2.6R. See Dxnibiz *C*. saces LF anc .?).

Zecause cf tras ¢2asnssis Fegess.sF eSe sSsses c= <8

esaeeessa. Te:8 ge@.9Cce:.SS 2°>26¢233 22: ~:2 Seges “Gat meee

tadc- Caress a —+ —-+ De - --—2 S- 2=< -e 7a -e'o* ewg

srrccsec ~rea ene 58 Sl + pee

SLcesn3tives: 2) <@etiens ia sesecuiss Ssscess 33 +%

3: (cl) DtkaStnG ihe selectssn Frscess: fe) ginédings ene

enalys:s ¢2 xsecs: anc, (3 secamen2atisns.

> PE ko) we a Bee Pr rs STAN

Re KSSRTS Oe Sea geewven AS T= 3S

S. 0 One@wisise she Asfecesd C= —=-~= 23

It ts che csinion of ths SSace Accer=sy and ct <se

@terk cf the Ctetsi = Coust, Sees County. ss Ser8

-3 20 2e0°%a 425 2ct “8ePing <2 se-eccssn Srccsss

as i= 13. (See secemses Tosa Minstes. “x7 +s "3°.

sagas 15 end 45, and, Sacssser fs Resess, Ssc2sss

“e°, sage 7. -

Merafsrs, 2% alternative sosatcest F155 weuld se <¢s

‘eave tha selecticn srtesss 23 it +3, 826. = Sree

ss rescend <s 2s 21n¢.-F3 ssgastzing <-e sense 3:

alienation that exists is aftfeccsc sour -t+es ene

ese sources cf concesm, Tad sss rerec s5S+S3 Wo-=s <6

“3 ecucate the effecisd commer tess Ta2t G68 --F!

— qe aap -

—_

=

=-47 o 7

a ee - — = ae sien ate = 2

oo

— 1 - we ee ee — hg ee - . . -

gtand juries sess

rectle have Seen

Sy che selecticsa

esenc.ing <se incereses oZ

procuced anc ase seinc

cess. +3. 28

asecmerse of %. ce}, Se Se 285") C2 =ac-se Gf one

— — arr ea et eee ~- - Se s “4a ema ittnnetiat Tl :

retrese: e 8 49-04 opoes a

ae a a “= « . i | a. + as oF - © -0 2-222

Sian is shat 25 would Se Ssesedc ustcn che sesucecics

S8t ssre -3 8 Ost Cf Me Com Lties *737 te -t2LVve

asc: _—-— — “a se \ece 2° -—“c-ace -—- ~~ 88 - o int @

36232358 SV o= _2ce 29 S2=e928 25 2s

Bats Masses, anv exe’ ss*2= se lack cf Latins,

S2acxs., C> =he SsCSr, would se seated -2- <5 se 2:2

--~— een e+ =~ s * a+ amt mt ete te -*s-e o---

Wa te Ot oe. “eee —_—- - » . ed

SSmaee (SOX. CCSNCRiS CF soclaes concitiscns. soo ss

LR EE er pS Bee ert eee

S228 4 Ce wes 6e Ww ---, S0@ ExBis:is “S°. sage 29).

Se em owe

we ee ee

T=@ Sace Counsy Communisy Relations tcart's szerscece

SaV@ Teqssling <a values cf ksesing che selecticn

S73tam SS <8 Grane susy as 42 is, i3 mst based cscs

See assessrant o2 whether share is sroven ¢iscris:e

BSTSSN Cue SS face, ets., Sut whether the crescent

e@lecticn srscess srceuces cealisy srand curies

- — ----__Le bd aa

S8lateve “Ss certesenting ali <be sacnle s2 Isde

CSURTY- TRO GRO Ce mba 7 raat onent ninean eae? = 2

ecor=s “hs finding cl hs 1376 Secamser Foo 2ecc=

_~-——_ -

=sat => > 22225- 22 2--: “_—- ——“<—e<<« bet td --- seen

aCe OVeSS 82 8 ee) 3) ms omen ni bo | PT TP

“BE 32 S255 "2.48 Wt 828 Tet rese=*2":ve9 24 o=2

--2>e4- antes <=-@ 3SOCS.6 Cf “8 costs, tec: fie

eslay, 3 2 _s-:+--= a oe a ee = * ag ay mm

@smeosicm. (See December Form Retort, Ixnisi: *2"

—_—_—_—_—— =. al

Pages 4.7, i838 asd 19.)

—_ i- 4 .

==eS Sineéiss eses acs iss ee

~ Sy chas cne seeds <s te ef

wOTi2 extriccicn ts Sa sensitive ts tatin =eeds. cr

Se Black <s be sensicive cs Slack xseds, cr te seer

TS se sensitive <s sccr saeds. Ner ¢dses the saneungs

wSSsy ~act the tudces, a3 tury commissicners, and che

sessers Sf <n8 v8risus qrund itries, .4 chev de hasten

a awe anc::oas™ -

—_ -le : “i

.

ts be sredcminancly c2 the White s2-2 middie class,

are nct sensitive in fact <S he “eecs Si tHe satla.

Slack. co =%8 soc.

Wace tess findine teans 2:3 2-8t 86 558k = -8 F

$0@N3.2.78 22 ne seece -8 782 ee’? tts Crt

-*c: =. “ev ian @=ce cmos acct cn tee -f yt -

- eo. -

~2 *8e wswal scuste cS soowlecse <5 any GssstsSn

: sefsere the crand pussy is estascy +23 acv.scr. =e

a932.373ht 32228 attssteyv, cl iscm <hemse.ves. +2 33

, wtesg che finding. cnet grand riry qstlesy +s soesnasnec

.2 ehe 4ets ceeds ci the Tatat, ine Flack ens ue ESSs

ate Sot retresent2¢ cm 32.2 Grens isrtes sy sersers cs

“ese Crfcts SY «2-2 re te ee ee s-- -= _— “—s«4

tet te

Seca:2e s=Se- serene 6 smears te =e tere ss

.

~~ «

9 - - - - * ~“_- 3 ”~ — -_-

celacte cs che fe-= -eecs C- -2--=3, 2253 8nc ine

secre sy “=e g* sees | a¢ =n ace a< ~-s40

S=SUSS Ss CrSes TS FSSHSTS = sscers3i se.sare, ssc%

a3 Tne C255 585 82°- ae seine? => TS ace eSsAcy

PH 4Oinmg =4¢ Commese- = “sta --—-2-= at =e saree -<

i ae .;. = ee . Sse> enc Ss e7c~*@e3 Ss

eke Sade Coiett Seca -—e-e C2 2 -=2* ~ec-'---23, 3 ensues

——— oe

= c-2: o- = 9-2. ——~- —- --

+

2. Ac@visise che Ss:2ces

Accther trestent tlan would Sa ts lLsave we t8-ectsss

socesss as 15 °°, Sus Sovesang “8 JSCTes- - -

° ,.

©... to exercise sesi:tiny . . . wnaresy als

of the rectle can participates Clsectsy

che aczinisc=ratiscn cf chs gsovasccent.*

_ Ths for2geing was =he ecvicas sf <2 ClTY sé eians Sy

racclition accoted ast its Sisvemser 19°68 seetiag sé

che Cisy Commiss:cn. (See Teca=se: fess agenda ane

Bsie?, Sxbisis “A*. F8Ge +3.)

hig’ Miems “raectztiscn teens thes the “utes =hetse> es

woul’ sesume an 2252282 fest’ ts 1s lice Terse=s 3S?

——_

ae e=@ 22.2%, 3.86% 823 SESS sotrenstt!s 2% 8S 2C.e LS

—— »

; .

. = -~ & a... o°

7

.

cf srssrec=.ve gtanc yurss Fcc-s and gsané Susv7

yenizes, +n orders cS assuse 28> - + “ALi ef uae

pectle can past.s+Face 4. secely wn tne acela+s te

e:sn cf the gsversmen=.”

.L te ts gcuse. &

Zon. Sucge Zar

~~. - el “* a 7 . . a -— = a _— * ad - —

_ —-@ a ee Oe

-- Rwrmnamtiae ef 640° 222+ 22e

er ~~"

=e — ==ec~..7@

SSBC TaSSss sec3sse of cness seing +4:

Bact, cs -oC>-. 3% i2 is is & Lega. 363.57

esse the goss Ssve_ =ss> aczetiet ~-¢ evics5ce

ef a aisertrer 7 223 see ieee * 2232

Rise, CF Uae SSF. Sele soned - sf

.

wes) or venire. 29 2255-25 ec. ~>es'—-=

a@ + e#eea e+ 222 * aed. bee --e ser =2 tt

- * ——_ ~~» wv “-* -

a ae pouewey

‘3 held wits. ue 625 3.3

ecmmanity t28t Vers +3 scm 21 acrlslas tess

4aact.%3 71201317353 “7 *-@ “1208

TarssScssoRn +3 = st

“hat exists r ‘See

ed

.

to

mein —: ~ a ne ae eS ese Take aT” ©?

Sisck, C= Secs 2S5 prssPec--” o¢ sae

Sudses alseacy Save — restcn3s-s+5scyY

sZ gudcting cases and contecvers-es- Soeevrer, 8

szere selection sv3tss >eccl=es — 2 cs <

se_sct —.c298 Tar3sc73 wince 1.0% <~tw secsuse =. 0°?

tc aos «| See samcasy Pores Ga7+assR Repose.

= oo” Ca Sal ‘ - 4 - 2 ea?

eeiSis “D*, sages 38 ane 29.) Sod oe se 26 ee

we exmees, Sh 8 tse Stans San ene eee eaes * = 2°

“5 actively 2.75373 -serselve?¢ sc 82 =S ssie <s

—_ sessc-s. Cutsi.ce Ss 52852 2.235. @.6 ---8

iw

————— a °

experience. 43 wns

salect Latins, 2+acxs. ane =:

srcstec=-ve grand 3SsSss-

croper ict sidses <3 spacisic3 +7 select

perscns 23 crtspec=+ve se2nd jusoss wes 3=%

satin. Black c= Sc-5- 2n2@ .t 72+5e3 csest+sns

=4 ceverse ¢23c2 558 s==* and sresesenc- o

essatest 2587 Fay 5 umnecessasy +5 2%

eiternative S59Se35 cs? se.ectsconm 62% <®

exsisyec witzcet we S2s8c> sasticsF25+S> e$

che 3 sc 79s. cee recesses Fo== 327235S% 2OFS>

Sesisit “S*. Feges -? sess <9.

questesn.- “SHSESS *sde Csuncy g=35> °.scs38

reflect macestarly (underline scces) ~2en<s°

é:asle ¢s==r3 == sacs Csunty?.--"* => 233-53

oe. s-*1re ans ee “ma + --e*-* 22°

*=*cr as 2>>5>5¢"

— ——— ——— = ya

“sve grace TSS Se St atss!’ 8c3-=8%

“at aes: esc. c= =cSsn 25

a const. ssse==2 -= =3 ~es*: = > a

~ ~- ~“—- - -

consec-2-—.3- @-797= 53 aoe -@? So ~— tS 4

ai2.3a23 2 +S a? e:22 c7—.-3 w22 celrt2.s 4-3¢c2+25

=aticn cs Yas serize.72 3% Ti+ pS ee eet

lace ta <3 —_ — ‘(como 8 -ccrrce

. -~-* a ——— ~*-- ~-* as

—™s Decesses ?o>= and the casussy ?or>=- §sclseing

srelisinasy enc Yolicweun ressasse sad wnvest+S2-+S%

sy the CG Cor Sivisicon. Sais ers ewes ==" eae

ec? ea 2 2e2e* => ae ace erae~~. "2 o-a-s ---=23

=o

ke D-en 679 Catecei2n 2Pr7C¢!23

c= ;

“~@ 270-575 e-2cd “> selec

af

§°¢

o

u

“u

"

0

)

o

4

u

+

i

“a om!

been descrisec 23 & SY3STEE WHare ==He GSvesncs.

che Sutesv.sc> cf Plectisns (wnich ac Seer as

elsctad tcosit-s"), 3 Clesk snd she cna an

o4 he Bcard cf Coansy Comess-cne=s wid

apceins jesy ccm+33+S53=5- ~——e Cou=: 27

Relations scart wes 2Sssase Sas == sv3ces

ease ender cr t+csss Sec3ause sf sclicics anc.

as a result, 2e psesens sysss= Vas 232. sss eC.

“~a %erec¢er tack e= ET deer. dear

™s s-ctcsaed “aeve *-aer cr ar= ‘*y o-* 4 s:-=st>122

oe 7 To eB ES 20 2A ——— = ws eo”

-~- atim-+2ee*-* ad eke 6 22003. 2 2£2::2> s-ea@

== Tks Eee —— ~

eo-ow- 7 - 34 tt ean 6 - go> 2548-3 a-3 wows

a -- ~a<£+s «seo: e-+e«et ©2°442 a*ar-+s2

zs 5 a=. ti” et ee ee Eh PN eee ©

facet23 OS So a eno abee eee na sectess sec.3°

e@wee+e7a ‘+e aeA +e wo. se ac™: e-er -v 2

ets Eee Oe an ener aon See ee

-

gems trati ve 72x (see 8 Sansasy iors

acenca anc 52-85, Seniisit *S*. peges 20 as2 2%.)

“9 Comcunicy 3e-+a8atscn3 Scasé 329-4 254455

howaves, thst =2.3 S=>>oS535- éses ce =2-"-<-35 8

gi tftetent 2v323S_ 22 eso tetaeee —— 320

pate rt so 8s <2 exc.sce e“49e w73 a8>3 "ct

“y oSg Retrsseccscaes A-3* 3ec7es, 98

er Oe = ————~!,

*

2 che srcresed amancant. ex cecil,

ee esse sh 23 whe o-e- 8 ese

svgctes feet 2st 2 tt 88 3322S sSS 62 s25.si2322+s=

acai at tts, Sct, LF sccs. wi..ce 8

ctteccrs 39-9C7-SR FrSCs33 +4 cessonec tS Corsect.

2.3 the Csosslecte tertieies of Chacte> SCS Deoceces! Sy

® 78 - wm

eae Grane Sus’? As3Ce+a=t-e™ ~-_ = Puee.Ee

- —— ee ee aA

“3 p=cresec ett ls=3 237%.3-.=

-~*- hk hol aed ae #-- <a eee s-t .

tag, CPLR ee EL Liew tE s-sc233 -s ~--%

H:iiy deserisec (= —8 Sacias’ Fotis acesce ane

2-192, Setesst 7S". Feges 2% <3 tn>5 64+, ac 28

znd 20. Mme iniciacss? 90.ess Soe ee

-- le

inet des eme feactise cf tne ~Stes Sort

-~_- Hones: s he az

e $s

ehs soreaeninc, enc excise nc Ssissbect-ve

—_——_—————- * 7 54

a * *

Se4SES MES. ede alata a lies =U Seale

ase -ce —mra’* + €+- aA a:+**a-r = =-e@ sees? ‘7e-3

e

. * -* e e .

Stl. Srsunc see Sas

*

=s lece=s; Cr2isd “sme --"

¢descs s.sed t3 tne Jancasy Fors =e

sot. Eehisis

= é . ‘= 2

°r°, sacas 24, 36 chess 27. SS 3S Sn3 =e. 85

sercscse == = vinse=y Tesss Repost. T2245 —8

TatAece”* “ver “= qeal eee er ss-ces? +3 2° ec

* ole) se ae ee ee ~ -.

ss es aced o= 8 cenccs 32.0355 3 ace: 38

se Reever 22--CS250 SrleuS=: « +

ecrees+.ss s5cce23 ‘7--=" ~3 ela:2ad =s se ssre

g:=ele ane 2 eee e 8 6 eee eee

Crest cris esis SY Feqeess-—s 4 srssPpecc.7e

qrans 7se"" SS Rr ee tee ee ee ae * TAsss

Zerq 3.2 cas Se acmemistersc Sy ah @ceen.s see

eles’. Parcthes, grand iscsrs 3=2 Frsvisae | Fes

“6 crizticias has =7c8 c2ised <het =

2

° - -_ _

Grend Sas? selaciiss Fr5sCIss sh.cuce 265 Se

adssted 33 a Loess. :sS5cs33 Ssscause <=n98 Caces

Coes) 2-ercd ~= =; *enw * ee eee ‘e -se

~~ —* ~ a, 2 2 = - eet . Cea ¢ &.

en-e-.e¢ SY S26 rece st. Geen =), Seo

Sie apne aot ad aa0 --—ere* 5a?

2 SmNCtTLOm waqessisg sats SST --S3ess cter3c.sr3

—_—-

Sak =

ss ° 4-4 <—and s+. --= ekee eee seecec sv

4ecess) 222506 ° =".

- Sears e¢ re pe ee rvwocre ev? woos

«> a . = ——s |

= - . ? = - - » *

.. The Dada County SssSen+ty Relations 3case 5A154°

ene+ce “at ems @ 20ers =! aé ? ssc AF me eae

= - —-2 —- = oe ee = _. a hat . 22a

9 8 ert ae eee? -O= = SECS ecanicv. 3 s=°

Liseva.. & stec3cial, and ==.—8t——-= ao —— a Fg

* -- =--@e se" =" -eafte ** -——. «20a ~** -s

Cee Ss te - a eee

aonve sess 228at 3Fe@ '--S2@ =s —--23s ess >2c=s2s°

-ee-c3, TEre ~~ 35 23a oe eae

Sctase cf Fise.-2 3 e- pee “ease, F.scs+=3-

* _- - - - _~—-—- -

2. The fade Counsy Css Ssiacicss 2cars jee

a. oJ “=-at --9 *.sesr-¢ doom aes = = -< --. ai. a one ay

yetes +3, 23 2=5=2C- eke sowsrless 233 252 %==-"

e=goy 26.2908 2s “eee (258 govesro3.<.. <==

eq .ssc 89 2°06 C92 Se iq sarce red => 2a 38

oo -— “ = —— eo

ek ee m-4¢°@ 2.299 2° 38

——

See sant StSes, * tees eee cad o=26 52-5

Si StSrSS sce ele etre sa 2 sees Cm canals

of ths Latins, 2+acxs, anc =:8 scot, wus, 23

sincricy F=TSEs. St SS TE==s ef sucbers Sut

casts cf =cwse>, sre at & éisadve-<ss8.

2, The Dade County Comen+s? AalLations tears Aste

*. a2 3 ~- = ~ 6 --- -<3-4 os =)

~ eee”

vwererm * = a _mwaeems 222 §9C57>226382

s —_ ad “~ ~- - - - =-22638

ess? fin0*.<5% ase =Ct Se-.-¢

_—s Laren é «s#@ * »*%*+2 --

pans ~= sec pes a ——=@

_* id - = _- -e=“=- as _- .

2° ac“, anc ) rac > ase e4 -<-«- * ely

met ut relatos - enc 2 sccve.

—

4. Tha fads County Como Relations 26852 Sises*

4. =A ~~ - - ~~an At “—— “1e7reanm -es-e«sar* -—- -~-

a3 aa - - ¢* ae - " - =. ° | -

eng “<9Y 12372 725-223 $= s=oS were = ne

“ave =n8 Cosel tates! sss ese Therelsss.

: ge.ecticm Srtcess wh-ss +3 = ree.ved is Se S

a: natos Sy am astisctec ¢=ctP ‘23 an effect se

~— = —_ -

—_

athe if —

~- o- pepe ee eee > ee - ae .

6S

—_—- oo

on

[| 2 Sede Coucy Co

ehact the nea sy cSt

’

™ «

*

sis

Ft a Lye Le as eve. 3:3 2s —-ae exists carnnct -@ =283~

-

—y ©e rain: “~- = *@ -~—-ee*

- oomee ~e3- Pa a ail

= <<“. * -—« A ——_— _—-_ -0e*8e72 eq" © _-

¢ send Cec Aa ee S

aoe me sass 568 ene V3lses =8t

ase sac feeen ts trese = -5cusd smaCaaN Ae YI+L3 SH rt

chat divarzens Yle~.Sco => seid sy <2 Fas.cys

elLasses cf ==is comoenssy =37 4

che tatin, =3 353c%. ax.c <==98 =

2. Cf the srcnet steak a =: Co

3 ons 3eard¢ 2c VS 427¢2 <=? 5

ssent select.s% systsS +35 Fo)

= =

.3 waich a23 9i3%3ias <=

ou

'

a

'

ot

provisions under a VYederst sysiem te 4

grand j=2+35, such a3 w2ss353— 5 = *-

@:s2 in ths Sace sys7a5 @oon $25.50 23 S=

enssis 223 ss 3S SATS.

2. The Dude County Co=TERsT Relaticns Scart S2=—ss

@es53 = soces3 33> Sec 31:39 es 0 nner 8

a -ese om --- ere se Seca“ 77 *e seco"? e«*ea * - lv

PENss per AS I= See =?

oa o%ece 23 . 165 225>75 =-6Ce239 -~- ~"-« ——** - €- ec

em an_75-47772 wena SOrt 3 see ede 8S t-

—-. =

scres=s <2 =3¢

=

seerisd ae':

eertsc, <---S-

a

—_—

— en |. 6 ©

. Lig R RR orem reacts ee me te ee

s

.

7- sa~<- -—-—- -——" meas * ee ee oe « --—- =-=-4=—

a= - ~ _~ cass ort ee ee > ee se. ** -

VLELONS T2&8t we Valse Sr>s= Se Zecera.

SCeacles SucK 23:

2 ? *- “cls “ae a?‘ -~s -—s eae e-a* -ave ==

~*-- ~~ ee A.¥ 4 4 *_- - ~=2"53 - . oem ane . e

ccceosmurity tS Se cons.cere|c SF Se-/7--8 ~}-4

. “ — ——

4ecera. Gr2nc *>+23.

3.2 22s selicy chat $6.255-=25% 252-- =" ex =.sSe¢

LEA MO AMM on

4--— «nat - . ed - ——- —— . ~- — =é

Naw a oe eS owes Wess seem "os" oe» a |

“3C@, CSLSD. FOLG=SR. SEK, T25-5--F- 32+ 2235,

Sm ecencSis 3732553.

9.2 tts celicoe {25 sende= selecsisn Whise @--5W3

= OO tl lin

fse any steritent 24-9CTLS% BY ITT =3. 36

ceviewed and =cdissec 22 CSSfs = =* 2223+>.3722523

@i2m the abcve srsvisssns 2ns SC--5-25-

3.4 ts selicy, segs rso25 a+ 2423c-SeR3 22> Se ad

- 2? . . =e re-Vv ded 2e°sCc"% . . o“nc"ae = CAR . 2¢

“ss 3es7°?.

~~. ae =

= * ou=™= -

—_

*?

= ..<.®

.

. «mam

4

c. ——