# Petition — Francois v. Florida

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385008_1864%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1982
- **Citation:** 459 U.S. 983

## Text

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 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 »

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 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) ~ , - “ , ’ 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

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 . “ 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.
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 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
-
.
> 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
:
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 - ——-" 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 " “ 5-7 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 ~
>.
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. » ) * : $-15-36
PtncsEa, DAVID fo os ; 2-75-34
FRITZ, Caan £. ‘ | # “ 5-29-53
SITTLEMAN, SOSE?% oy J nes ° -
~'@S$@ 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 ¥

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 _—. 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 - *¢
ewes sooee"S& i -. P - -o-
-- . “mem, - “hy ek
ws BR cs. o'er “AN Ge “ J o*s? ” 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

~AUVeo
~o wweeres = -—
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

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) “ 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. 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 ~ , = 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
:
"
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
. i ue te et
” e fret & “

=ae~s: -9S 7
~_———— = -

7

e

em

“ ?

.
“S5

—— ~~ ame ew . -_-~-

= oe remem neey sscretcc T°*2 ——s st ~~.
a ee er 5 — ee ee ee
ome 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 -—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 se fsusc 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 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¥ ¢oacess
ec Sy cchers 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= 26¢233 22: ~:2 Seges “Gat meee

tadc- Caress a —+ —-+ De - --—2 S- 2= 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 =he SsCSr, would se seated -2- > 22225- 22 2--: “_—- ——“e4- antes TS ace eSsAcy

PH 4Oinmg =4¢ Commese- = “sta --—-2-= at =e saree - 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 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 sasticsF25+S> e$
che 3 sc 79s. cee recesses Fo== 327235S% 2OFS>
Sesisit “S*. Feges -? sess °.scs38

reflect macestarly (underline scces) ~2en 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 = 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>oS535- éses ce =2-"-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 #-- 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 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 = = - 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-226382
s —_ ad “~ ~- - - - =-22638
ess? fin0*. ase e4 - 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

= seid sy 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 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. ——

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385008_1864%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.