Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

is al. -, , . ,.based solely on financial grounds. If a county, like Dallas County,r-has an under represented minority group and refuses to increasejury pay, the question remains whether there is any remedy- 7 under the United States Constitution.,Ilic~~Iic~dse,~ grndmt~dfm,,,Ceo'gctonnl UniieniQ lnrv GmIer in1990. He ans llw~limd b~,lIicLmeiS.Pallwr to mist 11, ,IN mpme~~tntio,r of~(~lite-collnr defi~~dntrts. APer tuco~wnzoilh zlfz flfllle4 bejoinedil~ Fedam1P~tblicLJcJe~~der's o$iee in DnIIm. AJersis mtd one ImYjwn in /IN Federn1P~fblicOefi~~der> O$m, Iaforn~edBr&r E211ickclsen wit6 Clint B ~ ~ I I ,nlso n for~,,rer&istmrf PedernIF,tbllcOefe,re~ ~lrpmctice is dewfed tocrimtmld~eme.On October 22,2000, the Dallas Morning News publisheda statistical analysis of the con~position of juries in Dallas CountyThis analysis established, that in relation to their population in thecounty, Hispanics dramatically under report for jury duty. Thestudy also showed that white residents are over represented anlongjurors that report. Moreover, the study showed that the poor are~~nder represented and the rich are over represented in DallasCounty jury pools. The results of this study probably come as nosurprise to sonleone who regularly tries cases in Dallas County.What is significant about the study is now, for the first time, morethan anecdotal evidence exists to establish this under representationof a n~~ority group and lower income residents from the jurypool.In addition, the Dallas Morning News survey establishedthat those individuals who failed to report overwhelming did sosin~ply because they could notafford to report for jury service. Thestudy established that individuals summoned who have l~ouseholdincomes under $35,000 were disproportionately Hispanic. DallasCounty pays jurors only $6.00 per day and State law does notrequire employers to pay employees who are absent as a result ofjury service. As a result, many Hispanic individual summoned areconfronted with the choice of foregoing the earnings necessary tomeet minimal housel~old expenses or reporting for jury service.U~tdoubtedly, the situation in Dallas County is mirrored in nmyother counties throughout the state of Texas.As a matter of basic fairness, it is clear that people shouldnot have to forego putting food on the table in order to exercisetheir right to serve on a jury. Most people would also agree that asa matter of basic fainless, a Hispanic defendant ought to have theopportunity to select a jury from a pool of jurors that reflects theproportion of Irispanics in the community. Evidence exists that ifjurors were paid $40.00 per day for their service, they would showup for jury duty in numbers proportionate to their numbers in thecomn~unity. Iu all likelihood, if any County Comn~issioner's CourtThe Sixth Amendn~eut of the United States Constitutionguarantees that a criminal defeudant has the right to a speedyand public trial by an impartial jury. The Supreme Court hasinterpreted the Sivth Amendment's i~~~partialityreq~~iren~e~~ttomean that a jury niust represent a fair cross-section of the comnlunity.The notionof an inipartial jury is symbolized by agroupcon~posed of people representing the various values, viewpoints,and experiences of a particular community. To satisfy the representativerequiren~ent of the Sixth Amendinent, however, juriesno st be randonlly selected from the commuuity.The fair cross-section requirement does not entitle adefendant to a jury that mirrors the conunnnity and reflects thenumerous distinctive groups present in the population. Ratltel; theSixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the opportunity for arepresentative jury by requiring that jury wlieels, pools of names,panels, or venires from which trial courts draw juries must not systematicallyexclude distinctive groups in the conununity. If a jurywheel, pool, panel, or venire systematically excludes distinctivegroups, then the resulting jury fails to constitute a fair cross-sectionof the community.111 Dwell 'Missouri, the Supreme Court set forth a clearthree part test to establish a prima facie case of the violation of thefair cross-section requirement: (1) that the group alleged to beexcluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representationof this gmup in venires from which juries are selectedis not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such personsin the community; and (3) that this under representation is due tosystematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.If a defendant successfully proves that a prima facie fair cross-sectionviolation has occurred, the burdenshifts to the government toshow that "those aspects of the jury selection process.. .that resultin the disproportionate exclusio~~ of a distinctive group" advance asiguificant state interest.There is no doubt that the group identified in DallasCounty, nan~ely Hispanics, is a "distinctive" group in the community.Mexican-Americans with Spanish surnames are a clearly identifiableclass with a history of subjugation to discriminatory treatment.There is also no doubtthat an absolute statisticaldisparity of18% between the percentage ofHispanics in the countyand the pepcentage of Hispanics reporting establishes that Hispanics are underrepresented. Courts have routinely conceded that an absolute statisticaldisparity of over 10% perceut meets the second prong of thetest.The real issue in Dallas County is whether this under rep.resentation is due to systen~atic exclusion of the gmup in the juryselectionprocess. On first consideration, one might think systeniaticexclusionto be synonyn~ouswith a jury selection processwhichengages in intentional discrimination. This notion, however, wouldbe mistaken. A defendant need not show purposefi~l discrirnination;he "need only show that the jury selectiou procedure 'systenlaticallyexcludc[s] distinctive groups in the comn~u~lity and therebyfail[s] to be a reasonable representation thereof." It nevertl~eless