Hernandez V Texas: The Constitutional Right To Trial By Jury

Hernandez v. Texas (1954) was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court extended constitutional rights to Mexican Americans, ruling that they and all other racial and ethnic groups in the country are entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was brought by Pete Hernandez, a Mexican-American man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Texas. Hernandez's lawyers, including prominent civil rights attorney Gustavo Gus Garcia, appealed the conviction, arguing that Hernandez had been deprived of his right to a trial by a jury of his peers due to the systematic exclusion of Mexican Americans from jury duty in Jackson County, Texas. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hernandez's favour, setting a precedent for challenging discrimination against Mexican Americans in employment, housing, education, and voting rights.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$239.57 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$104.97 $126.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

The Fourteenth Amendment

One of the key clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is the Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United United States and of the State wherein they reside." This clause established birthright citizenship and guaranteed that former slaves were legally considered citizens with all the accompanying rights and protections.

Another crucial component of the Fourteenth Amendment is the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause has been central to many landmark civil rights cases, ensuring that state laws treat all people equally regardless of race, gender, or other characteristics. It has been used to challenge discriminatory laws and policies and has been pivotal in advancing social justice and equality.

In the case of Hernandez v. Texas (1954), the Supreme Court relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down a Texas policy that excluded people of Mexican descent from serving on juries. The Court held that the systematic exclusion of a "distinct class" of people from jury service violated the Equal Protection Clause. This case was significant because it extended the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond racial discrimination against African Americans, demonstrating its applicability to other minority groups.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is also important, stating that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause safeguards individuals from arbitrary governmental actions and ensures that fair procedures are followed when depriving someone of their fundamental rights. The Due Process Clause has been interpreted to incorporate many protections of the Bill of Rights, applying them to the states and thereby limiting state governments' ability to infringe on individual liberties.

Overall, the Fourteenth Amendment stands as a cornerstone of American civil rights law and a powerful tool for ensuring equality and justice for all. Its provisions have been instrumental in shaping a more inclusive and fair society, and its impact continues to be felt in legal battles for equal treatment and protection under the law.

Jury discrimination

In 1954, the case of Hernandez v. Texas addressed the issue of jury discrimination against Mexican Americans in the state of Texas. Pete Hernandez, a Mexican-American agricultural worker, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by an all-white jury in Jackson County, Texas. The constitutional issue at the heart of this case centred around the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to equal protection under the law, regardless of race.

Hernandez's defence lawyer, Gustavo "Gus" Garcia, a prominent Mexican-American civil rights attorney, appealed the conviction on the grounds that Hernandez had been deprived of his right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Garcia and the legal team argued that the systematic exclusion of Mexican Americans from jury duty in Jackson County constituted discrimination and deprived Hernandez of the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. They asserted that Mexican Americans were treated as a "class apart", facing social discrimination and segregation in schools, restaurants, and employment.

The State of Texas denied the claim, arguing that Mexicans were legally classified as white, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend to white nationality groups. However, Hernandez's legal team challenged this notion, presenting evidence that no Mexican Americans had served as jury commissioners, grand jurors, or petit jurors in Jackson County, despite comprising 14% of the county's population. They demonstrated that over 6,000 jurors selected in the previous 25 years did not include a single person of Mexican descent.

The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered a unanimous ruling in favour of Hernandez. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to all racial and ethnic groups facing discrimination, including Mexican Americans. It clarified that Texas had unreasonably singled out a distinct group for different treatment, violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

As a result, Hernandez received a new trial with a jury that included Mexican Americans and was again found guilty of murder. However, the Supreme Court's decision set a significant precedent, broadening civil rights laws and challenging discrimination against Mexican Americans in employment, housing, education, and voting rights.

Mexican Americans as a special class

In the case of Hernandez v. Texas, the petitioner, Pete Hernandez, was indicted for the murder of Joe Espinosa by an all-white jury in Jackson County, Texas, in 1951. Hernandez's lawyers, including Gustavo "Gus" Garcia, a prominent Mexican American civil rights lawyer, appealed the ruling, arguing that Hernandez had been discriminated against because there were no Mexican Americans on the jury that convicted him. This was despite Mexican Americans constituting 14% of Edna's population.

The case centred on the issue of whether Mexican Americans were a "special class" within the white race and thus entitled to the same constitutional protections as other minority groups under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, guaranteed equal protection under the law to all African Americans. While the Texas Court of Appeals held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to a "two-class theory", classifying Mexican Americans as a special class within the white race, the Supreme Court disagreed.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, unanimously ruled in favour of Hernandez, finding that Mexican Americans were indeed a "class apart", a distinct group entitled to the same constitutional protections as other minority groups under the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling extended constitutional rights and protections to Mexican Americans, barring group-biased discrimination.

The Court found that Texas had unreasonably singled out Mexican Americans for different treatment, depriving Hernandez of the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court's decision set a precedent, leading to successful challenges against employment and housing discrimination, school segregation, and voting rights barriers faced by Mexican Americans.

The Hernandez case marked a turning point in the Mexican American civil rights movement, with Gus Garcia becoming the first Mexican American attorney to argue before the Supreme Court.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional equal protection

In 1954, the United States Supreme Court extended constitutional rights to Mexican Americans in the landmark civil rights case Hernandez v. Texas. The case involved Pete Hernandez, a Mexican-American agricultural worker, who was convicted of murder in 1951 by an all-white jury in Jackson County, Texas. Hernandez's pro bono legal team, led by Gustavo C. García, appealed the ruling, arguing that Hernandez was discriminated against because there were no Mexican Americans on the jury that convicted him.

The constitutional issue in Hernandez v. Texas centred around the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, provided equal protection under the laws, initially intended to protect the rights of newly emancipated African Americans. However, Hernandez's lawyers argued that he was deprived of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment due to the systematic exclusion of Mexican Americans from jury duty in Jackson County. They claimed that this discrimination resulted in Hernandez being tried by a jury that did not include his peers, violating his right to a fair trial.

The State of Texas denied the initial claims, arguing that Mexican Americans were legally classified as white, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect white nationality groups. However, Hernandez's legal team challenged this, asserting that Mexican Americans, despite their white classification, were treated as a "class apart" and faced social discrimination in Jackson County. They provided evidence of segregation in schools, restaurants, and other aspects of daily life in the county.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Hernandez, finding that Mexican Americans were indeed a "special class" or "a class apart" entitled to the same constitutional protections as other minority groups under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that Texas had unreasonably singled out Mexican Americans for different treatment, depriving Hernandez of the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution. This decision set a precedent, broadening civil rights laws to include Hispanics and all other non-white racial and ethnic groups facing discrimination.

The Hernandez v. Texas case marked a turning point in the Mexican-American civil rights movement. It clarified that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to all racial minorities, not just African Americans, ensuring that every legal victory for one minority group extended protection to all. This ruling sent a powerful message against discrimination and set a precedent for challenging employment and housing discrimination, school segregation, and voting rights barriers faced by Mexican Americans and other minority communities.

Hernandez's conviction and appeal

In 1950, Pete Hernandez, a Mexican-American agricultural worker, was charged with the murder of Cayetano "Joe" Espinosa in Edna, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by an all-white jury in Jackson County, Texas.

Hernandez's family sought out Gustavo "Gus" Garcia, a Mexican-American civil rights lawyer, to represent Hernandez's appeal. Garcia agreed to work pro bono, concerned about the racial makeup of the jury. No one of Mexican descent was included in the pool of potential jurors for Hernandez's trial, or in any jury pool in Jackson County in the previous 25 years. Garcia argued that Hernandez had been deprived of his right to be tried by a jury of his peers under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Hernandez's conviction was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The lawyers then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hernandez's favour, agreeing that he had been deprived of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that Mexican Americans were a "'class apart', a distinct group entitled to the same constitutional protections as other minority groups.

Hernandez received a new trial with a jury that included Mexican Americans and was found guilty of murder again.

Frequently asked questions