Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson v. Terrell Don Hutto, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction

Eighth Circuit

Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson v. Terrell Don Hutto, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction

523 F.2d 1383, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12277

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 1975

Docket75-1478, 75-1484

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 523 F.2d 1383 (Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson v. Terrell Don Hutto, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maurice Sanford and Jim Johnson v. Terrell Don Hutto, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction, 523 F.2d 1383, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12277 (8th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 F.2d 1383, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-sanford-and-jim-johnson-v-terrell-don-hutto-commissioner-ca8-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack