Ristaino v. Ross

424 U.S. 589 (1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ross (D) was tried in a Massachusetts court with two other Negroes for armed robbery, assault, and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery with intent to murder. The victim was a white man employed by Boston University as a uniformed security guard. The voir dire of prospective jurors was to be conducted by the court, which was required by statute to inquire generally into prejudice. Ds made a written motion that the prospective jurors also be questioned specifically about racial prejudice. The court refused to pose a question directed specifically to racial prejudice as the only prejudice developed by Ds was that they were black and the victim was white. The jury was impaneled. D was convicted of all counts. D contended on appeal that his federal constitutional rights were violated by the denial of his request that prospective jurors be questioned specifically about racial prejudice. This was rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. D sought a writ of certiorari. While his petition was pending, the Court held in Ham that a trial court's failure on request to question veniremen specifically about racial prejudice had denied Ham due process of law. The Court granted D's petition for certiorari and remanded for reconsideration in light of Ham. The Supreme Judicial Court again affirmed D's conviction. Ham turned on the need for questions about racial prejudice presented by its facts and did not announce 'a new broad constitutional principle requiring that [such] questions . . . be put to prospective jurors in all State criminal trials when the defendant is black. . . .' D again sought certiorari, but the writ was denied. D renewed his contention on collateral attack in federal habeas corpus. Relying on Ham, the District Court granted a writ of habeas corpus, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. It held that the facts of D's case, involving 'violence against a white' with 'a status close to that of a police officer,' presented a need for specific questioning about racial prejudice similar to that in Ham. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.