IN A 1972 TEXAS CASE, A MEXICAN-AMERICAN CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED RAPE CHARGED DISCRIMINATION IN THE GRAND JURY PROCESS. HE SHOWED THAT WHILE 79 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY WAS SPANISH-SURNAMED, THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MEXICAN-AMERICANS SERVING ON GRAND JURIES DURING AN 11-YEAR PERIOD IN THAT COUNTY WAS 39 PERCENT. HIS APPEAL WAS DENIED BY STATE COURTS, AS HE FAILED TO PROVE: THAT THE WOMEN ON THE JURIES WERE NOT MEXICAN-AMERICANS MARRIED TO ANGLO AMERICAN; AND HOW MANY MEXICAN-AMERICANS WERE SUMMONED FOR DUTY BUT WERE EXCUSED ON LEGAL GROUNDS. IN ADDITION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW MANY OF THE COUNTY'S TOTAL SPANISH-SURNAMED POPOULATION WERE ALIENS, ILLITERATE, OR OTHERWISE INELIGIBLE FOR JURY DUTY. A FURTHER CONSIDERATION WAS THAT MOST OF THE COUNTY'S JUDICIAL OFFICIALS WERE THEMSELVES MEXICAN-AMERICANS. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE STATE'S DECISION, HOWEVER, IT RULED THAT, EVEN CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF MANY INELIGIBLE RESIDENTS, THE PERCENTAGE OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN GRAND JURORS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD WAS STILL TOO LOW TO BE COINCIDENCE; THAT THE SYSTEM OF JURY SELECTION USED IN TEXAS WAS SUBJECTIVE, AND THUS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE; AND THAT THE UNDERREPRESENTED GROUP WAS AN IDENTIFIABLE MINORITY THESE SAME TESTS HAVE BEEN USED HISTORICALLY BY THE COURT IN OTHER CASES TO DETERMINE DISCRIMINATION. (VDA)