Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

Nos. 01-0001THB SATE OF TBWS,Plaintiff,M THE 666th DISllUcTCOURTv.JOHNNY BADGIIY,Defendant.DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND MEMOWDUM IN SUP-PORT TO QUASH THE JURY PANEL ON THE BASIS THAT ITFAILS TO REPRESENT A FAIR CROSS-SECION OF THECOMMUNITYDefe~idait, Joh~iny hdgq requests a hid by a jury representing a fair cross-section of theconmiunity as required by tlie hend~nent VI of the United States Constitutfon.William laCIe~k, the jury master of RI Fenix County, d testify that Ole State of Texas provideshim \vlth a 'qmy poop for El Peni. County Th r'jnrypool" is compliter data "downloaded" ona "c.d.ro~a" that contdns a list of EL Fenix County residents on the basis of voter regishytion informationconipilcd by Uie State, aid drivefs license records compiled by the Texas De$artnient of PublicSafety, who we believed to he qualified jurors. This database of names is programmed to nndomly generatethe naiies which will comprise the jury summons issued for any given week.Stan Sfatiticianis~ tracked tlie issuance of 13,612 sumonsissuedni ELEtenh County for thefirst ~ eek in Marell, 2001. He then ~xmdomly provided a questionnatre to 400 of those people whoresponded to UIC summons and reported for jury duiy, and 400 people who fded to respond Thisanalysis established that 25% of tlie summons issued N~IF to individuals who ideitised thenisehw asHispanic, and that only 7% of those who reported for imy dutyidenti0ed themselves as Hispa~tc.The Amendment VI of tlie United States Constitution gcialmtees that a criminal defendant hasthe right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial ju~y The Suprenie Coiut 11s interpreted die SixUiAmendment's imp;utiality requirement to mean Uiai a july ninst represent a fair cross-section of tliecommunity Eg., Smith u. Taxas, 311 U.S. 128, 130 (1940). The notion of an imprtial jury is synibohedby a gronp composed of people representing tlie various wlues, vievqoints, and expe~iences ofa patTicular comiunity. To satisisfy the rcprescnfative requirement of the Si~lli Amendment, howw;j~iries must be mdondy selected from tlie conun~mity. Tn~n~lor u. Loerisinrra,419 US. 522, 530 (1975).The fair cross-section req~~irenie~it does tiot entitle a defendant to a jwy that minors thecomniunity andreEects the nunierons distinctive goups present in Uie population. Id, at 538. Rather;the ShiZi hnendnieut gnamtees a defendant theopporh~nityfor a representative juty by requiring thatjurywheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which trial COIIITS draw ji1rie.s must not systematicallycxclude distinctive groqs in the comniunity If a ju~y wheel, pool, panel, or venire systematicallyexcludes distinctive groups, then the resulting jury fails to constitute a fair cross-section of the comniuuiry.Drwn u. hIisotir/, 439 US. 357,363-6't (1979).In Drrmn, the Supreme Court set forth a clar three pat test to estzhlisl a pika facie cmeof theviolation of the fair cross-section requirement: (1) that tlte poop alleged ta be e~cluded is a"distinctWe"group in the com~nunity; (2) that the representation of this group invenires from ~hich juriesure selected is not fair and reaso~iable in relation to the number of snch persons in tlie cunununity; nod(3) that tlus under iepme~italion is due to systenlatic exclnsion of the group in the juiysefectionprocess.If a defendant successii~liy proves that a prima facie hir crowsection lolation has occurred,the burden shifts to the govemnent to show that "those aspects of the ]my selection process. . . thatradt in the disp~'oportionatexclusion of a distinctive group" advance a sigui6~nt state uite~n. Id.,at 367-68.