opinion: COLEMAN v. ALABAMA.
  No. 162,
  Misc.
  Decided October 16, 1967.
  Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner and Orzell Billings-ley for petitioner.
  MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of Alabama, and Leslie Hall, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
  Per Curiam.
  The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
  On our previous remand, we held that petitioner was entitled to “his day in court on his allegations of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries sitting in his case.” 377 U. S. 129, 133. Petitioner was thereupon afforded an evidentiary hearing on his allegations. Although the evidence was in dispute regarding the inclusion of Negroes in the grand and petit jury venires in the county in which petitioner was indicted and tried, it appeared that no Negro served on the grand jury which indicted or the petit jury which convicted petitioner. It further appeared that up to the time of petitioner’s trial, no Negro had ever served on a grand jury panel and few, if any, Negroes had served on petit jury panels. This “testimony in itself made out a prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection which the Constitution guarantees.” Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 591. In the absence of evidence adduced by the State adequate to rebut the prima facie case, petitioner was therefore entitled to have his conviction reversed. Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773; Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584; Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 87-88; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475, 481; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 406; Norris v. Alabama, supra.
  On our independent examination of the record, we are unable to discover any evidence adduced by the State adequate to rebut petitioner’s prima facie case. The Alabama Supreme Court, in affirming the trial court’s denial of relief, acknowledged that the evidence indicated “a disparity” and stated only that “that disparity can be explained by a number of other factors.” 280 Ala. 509, 512, 195 So. 2d 800, 802. The only factors mentioned, however, were that Negroes had moved away from the county and that some may have been under the statutory disqualification of having suffered a felony conviction. In the circumstances of this case these factors were not in our view sufficient to rebut petitioner’s prima facie case.
  The judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
  It is so ordered.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.