Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson v. Terrell Don Hutto, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction
Maurice SANFORD and Jim Johnson, Appellees, v. Terrell Don HUTTO, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of Correction from a final judgment granting habeas corpus relief to Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson. Sanford and Johnson cross appeal from an order denying their motion to release pending retrial.
In October, 1969, Sanford and Johnson, two black men, were convicted by jury of first degree" rape in St. Francis County, Arkansas. After exhausting state remedies, petitioners filed this habeas corpus action claiming purposeful and systematic exclusion of black persons from the jury venire from which the jury panel that convicted them was drawn. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1
held that petitioners established a prima facie case of jury discrimination which the Commissioner failed to rebut. Accordingly, the petitioners’ convictions were vacated and the State of Arkansas was granted leave to retry them. Petitioners’ motion for release on their own recognizance pending appeal was denied.
We agree with Judge Henley and affirm on the basis of his well-reasoned opinion.
2
The State of Arkansas is given thirty days from the mandate of this court within which to retry the petitioners. If for any reason the State fails to commence the retrial within the allotted period or any extension granted by the trial court, the trial court shall immediately order the petitioners released.
The mandate of this court shall issue forthwith.
1
. The Honorable J. Smith Henley, District Judge.
2
. The opinion of the district court is reported at 394 F.Supp. 1278 (E.D.Ark.1975).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.