who was the main lawyer in hernandez vs. texas

Full Answer

What was the case of Hernandez v Texas?

Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954) Case Summary of Hernandez v. Texas: Hernandez was indicted for murder by a grand jury, and he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

How did Hernandez's lawyers claim he was deprived of equal protection?

Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been passed in 1868 and guaranteed equal protection under the law to all African Americans, Hernandez's lawyers claimed he had been deprived of equal protection because discrimination prevented him from being tried by a jury of his peers.

Was Hernandez convicted by an all-white jury?

Hernandez was convicted by an all-white jury. His lawyers appealed. They argued that Hernandez was entitled to a jury “of his peers” and that systematic exclusion of Mexican Americans violated constitutional law.

Why did Hernan Hernandez go to jail?

Hernandez was indicted for murder by a grand jury, and he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He moved to quash his indictment and trial jury panel, alleging that the county that charged him systematically excluded Mexicans from serving as jury commissioners, grand jurors, and petit jurors.

Who were the lawyers in Hernandez v Texas?

AdvocatesCarlos C. Cadena for the petitioner.Gus C. Garcia for the petitioner.Horace Wimberly for the respondent.

Who was involved in Hernandez vs Texas 1954?

Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States have equal ...

Who was the plaintiff in Hernandez v Texas?

Pete HernandezThe petitioner, Pete Hernandez, was indicted for the murder of one Joe Espinosa by a grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

What did the lawyers in the Hernandez case want to prove?

They argued that Mexican Americans had been kept from serving on a jury in Jackson County. They also proved that even though Hispanics made up more than 14 percent of the population, no person with a Hispanic surname had served on any jury in the county in the past 25 years.

Who was the judge in Hernandez v Texas?

Chief Justice Earl WarrenSupreme Court Decision delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)....Timeline.May 30, 1848Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted Mexicans rights of citizenship—categorizing them white by law.July 9, 1868Passage of the 14th Amendment guaranteed the Equal Protection Clause.10 more rows

Who won Hernandez vs Texas?

In Hernandez v. Texas, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to all racial and ethnic groups facing discrimination, effectively broadening civil rights laws to include Hispanics and all other non-whites.

How old was Pete Hernandez?

In 1951, Pete Hernandez, a 21-year-old, single, Mexican-American cotton picker, was drinking with a friend at a bar in Edna, a small town in Jackson County, Texas, when he became disruptive and was removed from the bar. Pete went home, obtained a gun, returned, and shot Joe Espinosa.

Why did Pete Hernandez shoot Joe Espinosa?

Hernandez, a field worker with a bad leg, had been insulted by Espinosa and shot him in anger. Caetano "Joe" Espinosa was a tenant farmer known to everyone in the small town of Edna, Texas simply as "Joe." On August 4, 1951, Pedro Hernandez shot and killed him. Gus Garcia and John J.

Why is Delgado v Bastrop important?

In the 1947 Delgado v. Bastrop ISC, it was determined that Mexican-American children could not be segregated from white schools. This was one of the first successful desegregation cases in the state.

What was the class apart argument on which Hernández's lawyers based their appeal what was the state's argument in response?

While Mexican Americans may be white, the established pattern of discrimination against them proved they were also “a class apart.” In justifying an all-white jury, the State of Texas argued in turn that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause covered only whites and blacks, and that Mexican Americans were ...

What had Garcia argued in his case before the Supreme Court?

García knew that lawyers for the NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall, had recently appeared before the Court, arguing the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education.

What changed as a result of the ruling in the Supreme Court case Hernandez versus Texas?

In 1954, in Hernandez v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the conviction of an agricultural labourer, Pete Hernandez, for murder should be overturned because Mexican Americans had been barred from participating in both the jury that indicted him and the jury that convicted him.

What amendment did Pete Hernandez get convicted of?

The Court held that Mexican Americans were “a class apart,” a distinct group entitled to the same constitutional protections as other minorities under the Fourteenth Amendment. Pete Hernandez received a new trial with a jury that included Mexican Americans, and was again found guilty of murder.

What court did the Texas case go to?

After the original guilty verdict was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

What was the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the lives of Mexican Americans?

The Supreme Court's decision set a precedent that led to successful challenges of employment and housing discrimination , school segregation, and voting rights barriers against Mexican Americans. The case literally helped improve the lives of millions of Latinos nationwide.

When did the Supreme Court extend Mexican rights to Mexican Americans?

Texas. In 1954 , the United States Supreme Court extended constitutional rights to Mexican Americans in the landmark civil rights case Hernandez v. Texas. Before the ruling, Mexican Americans were officially classified as white but faced overt discrimination and segregation.

What was the case of Hernandez v. Texas?

Case Summary of Hernandez v. Texas: Hernandez was indicted for murder by a grand jury, and he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He moved to quash his indictment and trial jury panel, alleging that the county that charged him systematically excluded Mexicans from serving as jury commissioners, grand jurors, and petit jurors.

Why was Hernandez v. Texas important?

Texas is an important decision because it made clear that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not just apply to discrimination against African-Americans. Rather, it applies to discrimination based on race and national origin.

Why did Hernandez move to quash the indictment?

In his motion, he claimed that persons of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from serving as grand jurors or trial jurors. Therefore, he claimed that he was deprived, as a Mexican-American, of equal protection because a class ...

How did Hernandez prove discrimination?

Second, Hernandez proved discrimination by showing that 14% of the population in the county had Mexican or Latin American surnames but no person with those surnames served on a jury in the last 25 years. The State’s rebuttal testimony from jury commissioners, claiming that they did not discriminate against Mexicans, was unpersuasive.

Which court denied the motion to equal protection in Texas?

The trial court denied the motion, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals passed on the equal protection issue presented.

Which court denied the motion to dismiss in Texas?

The Texas trial court denied the motion, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial.

Is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision reversed?

The decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.

What is the significance of Hernandez v. Texas?

In Hernandez v. Texas, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to all racial and ethnic groups facing discrimination, ...

Where was Hernandez convicted?

Hernandez was convicted of killing a man in cold blood in Jackson County, Texas, but his legal team, which was drawn mostly from one of the oldest Latino civil rights groups in the nation, the League of United Latin American Citizens, appealed. They pored through the records of jury selections in Jackson County, ...

Which amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two class theory'?

Writing on behalf of himself and the other eight justices, Chief Justice Earl Warren dismissed this notion, saying, "The Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory'—that is, based upon differences between 'white' and Negro.".

Who was Peter Hernandez?

The defendant, Peter Hernandez, was a Mexican American agricultural laborer, part of the influx of such workers that had come to Texas during and after World War II. Hernandez was convicted of killing a man in cold blood in Jackson County, Texas, but his legal team, which was drawn mostly from one of the oldest Latino civil rights groups in the nation, the League of United Latin American Citizens, appealed. They pored through the records of jury selections in Jackson County, an area with a substantial Hispanic population, and found that not one of the roughly 6,000 jurors selected over the previous 25 years had a Hispanic last name. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been passed in 1868 and guaranteed equal protection under the law to all African Americans, Hernandez's lawyers claimed he had been deprived of equal protection because discrimination prevented him from being tried by a jury of his peers.

Who dismissed Douglas MacArthur?

The Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, meeting in closed session, begin their hearings into the dismissal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur by President Harry S. Truman. The hearings served as a sounding board for MacArthur and his extremist views on how the Cold War ...read more

Where was the war crimes trial?

In Tokyo, Japan, the International Military Tribunals for the Far East begins hearing the case against 28 Japanese military and government officials accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during World War II. On November 4, 1948, the trial ended with 25 of ...read more

What did the court decide in the case of Hernandez?

The court held that Hernández had "the right to be indicted and tried by juries from which all members of his class are not systematically excluded.". This decision was a major triumph for the "other White" concept, the legal strategy of Mexican-American civil-rights activists from 1930 to 1970.

When was Hernandez's case upheld?

It was not surprising to him when Hernández was found guilty and the decision was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Supreme Court acted upon a writ of certiorari and heard the arguments on January 11, 1954.

What was the first Mexican-American civil rights case?

Hernandez v. State of Texas. The first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period was Hernández v. the State of Texas. In 1950 Pete Hernández, a migrant cotton picker, was accused of murdering Joe Espinosa in Edna, Texas, a small town in Jackson County, where no person of Mexican origin had served on a jury for at least twenty-five years. Gustavo (Gus) García, an experienced Mexican-American civil-rights lawyer, agreed to represent the accused without fee. García envisioned the Hernández case as a challenge to the systematic exclusion of persons of Mexican origin from all types of jury duty in at least seventy counties in Texas. It was not surprising to him when Hernández was found guilty and the decision was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Supreme Court acted upon a writ of certiorari and heard the arguments on January 11, 1954. With García were James de Anda and Chris Alderete of the American G.I. Forum and Carlos Cadena and John J. Herrera of the League of United Latin American Citizens. García argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed protection not only on the basis of race, Caucasian and Negro, but also class. Those who administered the process of jury selection introduced discrimination because of exclusion based on class. The state of Texas contended that the Fourteenth Amendment covered only Whites and Blacks, and that Mexican Americans are White. The state admitted that no person with a Spanish surname had served on any type of jury for twenty-five years, but that this absence only indicated coincidence, not a pattern of attitude and behavior. García and his associates presented comprehensive evidence that in Jackson County discrimination and segregation were common practice, and Mexican Americans were treated as a class apart.

What is the Supreme Court's view on the distinction between white and Hispanic?

The Supreme Court accepted the concept of distinction by class, that is, between "White" and Hispanic, and found that when laws produce unreasonable and different treatment on such a basis, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection is violated.

Which case recognized Hispanics as an identifiable minority group and utilized the Brown decision of 1954 to prohibit segregation?

The case was a valuable precedent until it was replaced in 1971 by Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD, which recognized Hispanics as an identifiable minority group and utilized the Brown decision of 1954 to prohibit segregation. Bibliography. Categories.

Who was the Latin American leader who argued that the 14th amendment guaranteed protection not only on the basis of race,?

With García were James de Anda and Chris Alderete of the American G.I. Forum and Carlos Cadena and John J. Herrera of the League of United Latin American Citizens. García argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed protection not only on the basis of race, Caucasian and Negro, but also class.

Who killed Joe Espinosa?

In 1950 Pete Hernández, a migrant cotton picker, was accused of murdering Joe Espinosa in Edna, Texas, a small town in Jackson County, where no person of Mexican origin had served on a jury for at least twenty-five years.

Who was the petitioner in the case of Joe Espinosa?

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioner, Pete Hernandez, was indicted for the murder of one Joe Espinosa by a grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

What was the burden of proof in Norris v. Alabama?

Alabama, supra. To rebut the strong prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution thus established , the State offered the testimony of five jury commissioners that they had no discriminated against persons of Mexican or Latin American descent in selecting jurors. They stated that their only objective had been to select those whom they thought were best qualified. This testimony is not enough to overcome the petitioner's case. As the Court said in Norris v. Alabama:

How many grand jurors are there in Texas?

After taking an oath that they will not knowingly select a grand juror they believe unfit or unqualified, the commissioners retire to a room in the courthouse where they select from the county assessment roll the names of 16 grand jurors from different parts of the county. These names are placed in a sealed envelope and delivered to the clerk. Thirty days before court meets, the clerk delivers a copy of the list to the sheriff who summons the jurors. Vernon's Tex.Code Crim.Proc. arts. 333—350.

What amendment prohibits Catholics from juries?

State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 277 S.W. 1091, the Texas court held that the systematic exclusion of Roman Catholics from juries was barred by the Fourteenth Amendment . In Clifton v. Puente, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 272, the Texas court ruled that restrictive covenants prohibiting the sale of land to persons of Mexican descent were unenforceable.

Is there a chance that no one will serve on a jury?

Circumstances or chance may well dictate that no persons in a certain class will serve on a particular jury or during some particular period. But it taxes our credulity to say that mere chance resulted in their being no members of this class among the over six thousand jurors called in the past 25 years. The result bespeaks discrimination, whether or not it was a conscious decision on the part of any individual jury commissioner. The judgment of conviction must be reversed.

Is the Texas system of selecting grand jurors fair?

As the petitioner acknowledges, the Texas system of selecting grand and petit jurors by the use of jury commissions is fair on its face and capable of being utilized without discrimination. 7 But as this Court has held, the system is susceptible to abuse and can be employed in a discriminatory manner. 8 The exclusion of otherwise eligible persons from jury service solely because of their ancestry or national origin is discrimination prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas statute makes no such discrimination, but the petitioner alleges that those administering the law do.

What was Hernandez's argument before the trial?

His argument was that person's of Mexican descent were purposefully excluded from serving on the grand jury. His objection was denied, and the trial began, and not a single person of Mexican descent was present on the petit - a jury that hears evidence and decides guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, Hernandez made the same motion, which was denied each time.

What did Pete Hernandez' attorney say about the jury pool?

His attorney claimed that the jury pool was biased, as no members on the jury, or persons in the jury pool or jury pool register in the country for the past 25 years had been of Mexican descent. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause required that everyone be treated equally under the law, and the amendment's due process clause required that each person receive a fair hearing, free of bias.

Why should Mexican Americans be treated as a class?

Thus, the Court held that Mexican-Americans should be treated as a class for purposes of 14th Amendment protection, and since Hernandez was a member of that class, he should get a new trial.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court began their opinion by looking at the history of Supreme Court decisions that declared jury pools and trial processes as discriminatory based on race. In these cases, they held that when there is racial bias, a defendant is denied equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

What was the impact of the trial of Hernandez?

Its long-term impact, however, came with court officials in the entire country put on notice that classes of people - not just based on race or color - are afforded protection from discrimination under the 14th Amendment.

Did Norris serve on a jury?

Norris' conviction was reviewed by the Supreme Court, which held that the entire jury process purposefully excluded black members, citing that in the entire history of the county, at that point, not one black member had served on a jury or grand jury: a claim made by Hernandez' lawyers 20 years later regarding Hispanic members.

Did the Supreme Court rule that Mexican Americans were entitled to equal protection?

If they were, then the issue was whether there existed bias in the jury selection process that denied Hernandez a fair trial. The Court ruled 'yes' for both.

Who was Pete Hernandez?

Pete Hernandez, a migrant worker , was tried for the murder of his employer, Joe Espinosa, in Edna, Texas, in 1950. Hernandez was convicted by an all-white jury. His lawyers appealed. They argued that Hernandez was entitled to a jury “of his peers” and that systematic exclusion of Mexican Americans violated constitutional law. In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Mexican Americans—and all “classes”—were entitled to the “equal protection” articulated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Who killed Joe Espinosa?

The petitioner, Pete Hernandez, was indicted for the murder of one Joe Espinosa by a grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Prior to the trial, the petitioner, by his counsel, offered timely motions to quash the indictment and the jury panel. He alleged that persons of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from service as jury commissioners, grand jurors, and petit jurors, although there were such persons fully qualified to serve residing in Jackson County. The petitioner asserted that exclusion of this class deprived him, as a member of the class, of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. …

What is the pattern of proof in Norris v. State of Alabama?

State of Alabama. In that case, proof that Negroes constituted a substantial segment of the population of the jurisdiction, that some Negroes were qualified to serve as jurors, and that none had been called for jury service over an extended period of time, was held to constitute prima facie proof of the systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury service. This holding, sometimes called the “rule of exclusion,” has been applied in other cases, and it is available in supplying proof of discrimination against any delineated class.

What amendment did Hernandez' lawyers argue against?

Hernandez’s lawyers argued that exclusion of persons of Mexican or Latin American descent deprived him, as a member of this class, of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After a hearing, the trial court judge denied the lawyers’ motions.

Who was Pete Hernandez?

In 1951, Pete Hernandez, a 21-year-old, single, Mexican-American cotton picker, was drinking with a friend at a bar in Edna, a small town in Jackson County, Texas, when he became disruptive and was removed from the bar. Pete went home, obtained a gun, returned, and shot Joe Espinosa. In September 1951, he was indicted for murder.

Who shot Joe Espinosa?

Pete went home, obtained a gun, returned, and shot Joe Espinosa. In September 1951, he was indicted for murder. Prior to trial, Hernandez’s lawyers moved to quash the indictment and the jury panel.

Did Hernandez' lawyers call himself a witness?

At Hernandez’s trial in District Court in Jackson County, his lawyers could only call Hernandez himself as a witness.

What is the significance of Hernandez v. Texas?

Texas, the notion that every single citizen of the U.S. despite their unrelated characteristics was entitled to the same amount of legal protection. Thus, the court ruling established the principles of equality and, more specifically, the idea of equal protection as the principal American right to which every citizen was entitled.

Why was Hernandez v. Texas a landmark case?

Texas showed. Thus, the case under analysis became a landmark due to the focus on equality for every ethnic minority in the U.S.

Was Hernandez based on ethnicity?

Despite the presence of strong evidence that indicated that Hernandez was to blame for the death of Espinoza, the fact that his conviction was initially based purely on his ethnic identity served as the starting point for the case to be launched (“Hernandez v. Texas (1954)”). Therefore, the fact that his nationality served as the main factor in arresting him made it possible for Hernandez to appeal for the reconsideration of his case.