Hernandez v. Texas and Latino Civil Rights in the U.S.

Introduction

Studies conducted in the past have clearly indicated that some racial groups are overrepresented in the U.S. criminal justice system. There have been claims that some stages of the criminal justice process disadvantage certain groups, including Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and African-Americans. This paper is largely concerned with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hernandez v. Texas, a landmark decision that has had a significant impact on the civil rights of Mexican-Americans. In so doing, it will, among other things, examine the relevance of this particular ruling to Latinos in the United States.

Overview of Hernandez v. Texas

In basic terms, the Hernandez case "involved the exclusion of Mexican-Americans from serving as jurors, which, like voting, is a primary duty and privilege of U.S. citizenship" (Soltero, 2009, p. 38). Accused of murdering Joe Espinoza, Hernandez was indicted by a grand jury whose members were all white. The attorneys of the accused attempted to have the indictment quashed on the grounds that Mexican-Americans were barred not only from the judge-selecting jury commission but also from petit juries. The defense also raised the concern that no person of Mexican descent was serving on the jury in this particular case. This exclusion was used as the basis for the claim that there was systematic discrimination against citizens of Mexican ancestry as a special class. The motions were denied by the trial court, and the accused was promptly sentenced to life imprisonment by the all-white jury (Soltero, 2009).

On appeal, Hernandez's pleas were rejected by Texas' highest criminal court on the basis that Mexicans were essentially "white people of Spanish descent" — as distinct from those of the Negro race — and could therefore not be categorized as a separate special race (Soltero, 2009, p. 39). With this reasoning, the court pointed out that "since other white people served on the juries, the absence of people of Mexican ancestry did not violate equal protection" (Soltero, 2009, p. 38). According to the court's decision, Mexicans could not be placed under the "special class" banner as contemplated by the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The key question that remained was whether using a jury that deliberately excluded members of a particular ancestry or race to try an individual from that same excluded ancestry or race constituted a breach of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that other racial groups existing in communities beyond the two under immediate consideration — Negroes and whites — were also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the Court found that "the Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory' — that is, based upon differences between 'white' and Negro" (García, 2009, p. 180).

Factors Impacting the Latino Experience in the Criminal Justice System

The Latino experience in the American criminal justice system is shaped by a wide range of economic, social, political, and legal factors. Two of the most significant are racial profiling and diminished educational and economic opportunities.

For a long time, the issue of racial profiling has largely been discussed in terms of Black and white. In reality, racial profiling can assume many forms, and fundamentally involves the use of an individual's ethnicity or race as the basis for a decision by law enforcement personnel — for instance, whether to conduct an arrest or a search. According to Levin, as cited in Cyndi (2009), Latinos are widely perceived to be lazy, sneaky, and dishonest. For this reason, "law enforcement practices and the criminal justice system have been shown to collaborate in discrimination against Latinos in the form of police harassment of Mexican-Americans" (Cyndi, 2009, p. 67). As recently as 2003, university professors hired by the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Latino drivers were actively being profiled by law enforcement officers in Alamance County — a finding that was widely reported in the media.

Many witnesses have reported that a number of law enforcement agencies, such as the LAPD, have well-entrenched practices that condone the harassment of minorities (The Sentencing Project, 2013). This is particularly the case when it comes to the detention of Latino and African-American men whose descriptions fit those of criminal suspects (Cyndi, 2009). The LAPD, specifically, has been accused of employing "invasive, humiliating tactics against minorities in minority neighborhoods" (Cyndi, 2009, p. 67).

Stereotypical representations of Latinos can be found in literature, everyday discourse, and the mass media. There are numerous depictions of Latin America in works of fiction that are, more often than not, mere stereotypes rooted in misconceptions. Stereotyping is so severe with regard to Latinos that they "suffer from an aggregation of negative stereotypes experienced by both African-Americans and Asian-Americans" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, p. 207). At the most basic level, Latinos are seen as immigrants, outsiders, or foreigners (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000). This stereotyping can sink to the point where all Latinos are viewed as illegal immigrants — such that those who speak English with a Spanish accent are automatically associated with illegal immigration.

It is also important to note that "like African-Americans, Latinos suffer from a Latino-as-criminal stereotype" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, p. 207). This form of stereotyping is largely age and gender specific, with young male Latinos being most affected. Such individuals "are assumed to be gang members, particularly if they live in a low-income, high-crime neighborhood and wear baggy pants and T-shirts" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, p. 207).

Yet another stereotype worth examining is that which portrays Latino men as hot-tempered and "macho." In this framing, Latinos are presented as people easily motivated to engage in violence as a means of expressing anger. As Delgado and Stefancic (2000) note, "in many of these cases, despite the fact that the Latino victim was unarmed or shot in the back, criminal charges were not brought against the person claiming justifiable homicide" (p. 208). This situation reflects a collective, widely held belief that Latinos are more likely to be lawbreakers, so that when one is shot, the general perception is that they were at fault — a perception that, when applied within the formal justice system, is deeply harmful to the interests of Latinos.

There are a wide range of reasons why Latinos do not attend college at rates comparable to those of their white counterparts. According to Schneider, Martinez, and Owens (2006), "many Hispanic students begin formalized schooling without the economic and social resources that many other students receive, and schools are often ill equipped to compensate for these initial disparities." The absence of such social and economic resources often stems from parents' limited knowledge of the U.S. education system and their status as immigrants with restricted access to resources.

As a result, many Latinos end up performing poorly or dropping out of school, thereby jeopardizing their chances of attending college. Compared to their white peers, Latino students are more likely to attend schools with less demanding curricula, lower expectations, and less qualified teachers. These schools are not held in high regard, making it extremely difficult for their graduates to gain acceptance to colleges.

Those who fail to gain college admission or do not graduate from high school find their future prospects severely limited, with the criminal economy often appearing to be the only available means of survival. For obvious reasons, those who choose this path frequently end up in prison. It is important to note, however, that not all do. Others seek — and often find — legitimate ways of making a living. Nevertheless, the fact that even a small minority of Latinos engage in criminal activity is often enough to result in the criminalization of the entire community.

Conclusion

Hernandez v. Texas was the first case of its kind with regard to the enhancement of the rights of Latinos, particularly concerning whether they were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is important to recognize that discrimination and bias of any kind — for any reason — are not only morally wrong but are also contrary to the principle of equality. Under that principle, all individuals should be treated equally, which effectively means that race should never be used as the basis for differential treatment where no factual justification exists.

Rulings such as the one in Hernandez v. Texas contribute significantly to eliminating systematic discrimination in the criminal justice system, especially at key decision-making points. It is hoped that going forward, efforts to address the persistent overrepresentation of Hispanics in the country's justice system will ultimately bear fruit.