Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967), found in favor of the petitioner (Whitus), who had been convicted for murder, and as such reversed their convictions. This was due to the Georgia jury selection policies, in which it was alleged racial discrimination had occurred. The plaintiffs argued that, as their county had a 45% population of African-Americans, it was discrimination and unfair to have been presented with all-white or nearly all-white juries each time. Thus, the Supreme Court – as well as overturning the convictions – ruled that Georgia renew its jury selection policies. Previous law meant tax returns would be sorted, and "Negroes" would have a '(c)' placed next to their name. In the conviction of Whitus, the jury had been selected via old lists. Background After petitioners, who are black, were convicted of murder in the Georgia courts, they filed a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, attacking the composition of the grand and petit juries which indicted and convicted them. The District Court dismissed the writ and the Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court vacated that judgment and remanded to the District Court for a hearing on the claim of discrimination ( 370 U.S. 728 ). Decision Majority opinion The majority opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Tom C. Clark. Justice Clark states that the appeal is not whether the defendants were wrongfully convicted of murder but if the jury selection purposely excluded the admittance of African Americans from the grand and petit juries. The system of selecting jurors comes from the books of the county tax receiver but questions have been raised about if the system is rigged with notations that signify which males on the tax receiver's list are African American. The court granted certiorari and found the circumstances surrounding the state were sufficient to support the claims of racial discrimination. Decision On January 23, 1967, in a nine to zero unanimous decision, the Supreme Court stated that the case of Whitus v. Georgia should be reversed and the law in question, being the 14th Amendment concerning equal protections, should be upheld and seen as constitutional. From the opinion of Justice Clark, the decision was overturned because the circumstances surrounding the case supported the claims of the petitioners. The claims were claims of discrimination which the Court had realized and therefore reversed the judgement. The Court of Appeals held that African