Castaneda v. Partida

In Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 51 L. Ed. 2d 498, 97 S. Ct. 1272 (1977), the Supreme Court held that an equal protection violation occurs when the government purposefully excludes certain identifiable groups from serving on a grand jury. Partida, 430 U.S. at 494-95. A rebuttable presumption of purposeful discrimination arises if the defendant makes out a prima facie case, which consists of showing: (1) that a particular group constitutes "a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied," (2) "the degree of underrepresentation ... by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as grand jurors, over a significant period of time"; (3) "a selection procedure that is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral." Id. at 494. Once a prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts to the State to rebut that case. Id. at 495. In Partida, the Supreme Court characterized the disparity as a 40% difference. The Court used the most recent census figures (1970) to determine the proportion of Mexican-Americans in the total population in Hidalgo County and examined grand jury lists for that county over a period of eleven years. Partida, 430 U.S. at 486, 495-96. The Court found that Spanish-surnamed and Spanish-language individuals (which it assumed were all Mexican-Americans) constituted 79.1% of the county but that Spanish-surnamed individuals composed only 39% of the persons summoned for grand jury service. Partida, 430 U.S. at 486-87, 495. The Court found this difference to be greater than that in many other cases in which disparities were found to be significant. Id. at 496. In Partida, the Supreme Court referred to a list of 8,000 Spanish surnames compiled by the Immigration and Naturalization service. Partida, 430 U.S. at 486 n.5.