Hernandez v. Texas

Media Items
Advocates
Carlos C. Cadena (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Gus C. Garcia (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Horace Wimberly (Argued the cause for respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
406
Petitioner: 
Hernandez
Respondent: 
Texas
Decided By: 
Warren Court (1953-1954)
Opinion: 
347 U.S. 475 (1954)
Decided: 
Monday, May 3, 1954

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Hernandez v. Texas , 347 U.S. 475 (1954)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_406)
Facts of the Case: 

Pete Hernandez, an agricultural worker, was indicted for the murder of Joe Espinoza by an all-Anglo (white) grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. Claiming that Mexican-Americans were barred from the jury commission that selected juries, and from petit juries, Hernandez' attorneys tried to quash the indictment. Moreover, Hernandez tried to quash the petit jury panel called for service, because persons of Mexican descent were excluded from jury service in this case. A Mexican-American had not served on a jury in Jackson County in over 25 years and thus, Hernandez claimed that Mexican ancestry citizens were discriminated against as a special class in Jackson County. The trial court denied the motions. Hernandez was found guilty of murder and sentenced by the all-Anglo jury to life in prison. In affirming, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that "Mexicans are...members of and within the classification of the white race as distinguished from members of the Negro Race" and rejected the petitioners' argument that they were a "special class" under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the court pointed out that "so far as we are advised, no member of the Mexican nationality" challenged this classification as white or Caucasian.

Question: 

Is it a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause to try a defendant of a particular race or ethnicity before a jury where all persons of his race or ancestry have, because of that race or ethnicity, been excluded by the state?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the two classes of white or Negro, and extends to other racial groups in communities depending upon whether it can be factually established that such a group exists within a community. In reversing, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment "is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory'" but in this case covers those of Mexican ancestry. This was established by the fact that the distinction between whites and Mexican ancestry individuals was made clear at the Jackson County Courthouse itself where "there were two men's toilets, one unmarked, and the other marked 'Colored Men and 'Hombres Aqui' ('Men Here')," and by the fact that no Mexican ancestry person had served on a jury in 25 years. Mexican Americans were a "special class" entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abstract submitted by Professor Marc S. Rodriguez

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Hernandez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Warren
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Reed
Voted with the majority
Frankfurter
Voted with the majority
Douglas
Voted with the majority
Jackson
Voted with the majority
Burton
Voted with the majority
Clark
Voted with the majority
Minton

Full Opinion by Justice Earl Warren