Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

Iremains to be seen whether any court will consider either failure toadequately pay jurors to constitute "systematic exclusion."With respect to this issue, an interesting comparison maybe made between the two grand jury cases, Cerrfa u B.ws andHemandezu Tms. Although these two cases involve the compositionof the grand jury, the analysis for determining the constitutioualityof the composition of the grand jury and the petite jury isessentially thesame.In Cerda, the defendant challenged the Hale Countygrand jury on the basis that it denied him equal protection of thelaw. The defendant established a prima facie case that there hadbeen a s~~bstantial under representation of Mexicandinericans thatwent unrebutted. T~I Cerdfl the court of appeals also acknowledgedthat Mexican-Americans were an identifiable class. Tl~e court ofdence:' In Hetnmdez the court of appeals held that the defendantfailed, however, to establish that Brewster County used a selectionprocedure that is susceptible to abuse. The court of appeals heldthat any county thatuses a "jury wheel" uses a racially neutral systemthat will withstand constitutional attack.There are goodreasons, however, to question this conclusion.Although little has been written on what the Supreme Courtmeant by "systematic exclusion" in Duren, the facts hmfrar dogive someindication.InDurm the petitioner chdongd the Missourisystem of procuring a jury pool. At that time Missouri anowed allwomen an automatic exemption. This statntory right to an exemption, coupled with petitioner's statistical evidence, convinced theCourt that "systematic exclusion" was taking place. It is difficult topredict whether any court win consider a county'sfailure to pay a juror an adequate wage to be anal-URYogous to an automatic exemption for a discreteclass of individuals such as oecimed in Duren.'Illere may exist, however, a another argument toestablish "systenlatic exclusion" in addition to theargument that failure to pay jurors a fair wage constitutesGsystematicexinsion?TO swve US a iul.0~ YOU mi& meet ~ualiRcdtions:" " * "beat least 18 years of age;he a citizen of this state and a resident of the county in which you are to serve as aj~u or;be qualified nndcr the Constitution and laws to vote in the county in which you are toserve as ts juror (Note. you DO NOT have to be registered ta vote to be qualified toIn Dallas County, Donna Roach, thejury clerk responsible for all jury summons to theCrowley Crlnbmat Courts building, testified at arecent hearing challengil~g Dallas County Juries 011crossm%ion grounds, that 110 steps are taken toenforce the summons when ignored. One couldplausibly argue this is effectively an exemption forilldividual ,vllo writs to shirk jury an... , option which is nlost often exercised by the poorvolt);he of sound mind and good morA character;be able to read and write;not haw served as a juror for six days during the preceding three months in the countycowt of dnring the preceding six n~ooths in the district court;not have bee11 convicted of tl~eft or any felony; andnot be mder indictn~ent or other legal accusation of a misdemeanor theft, felony theftor any other felony charge.appeals accepted the defendant's evidence tile population of HaleCounty was 38.03%, that theveuirefou grand jury service was 25%Mexican-American, but only 16.67% of the grand jurors selectedwere Mexican-American. Based on these figures the court ofappeals concluded that the State had a burden to rebut the evidenceof apparent cliscrimination. Because the State failed to do so, thecourt of appeals reversed the conviction and ordered the indictmentdismissed. Notably, in CerJrr, the grand jtnors were selectedon the basis of a "key man" jury systeni, which, althongh constih1-tionnlly valid, is subject to abuse.111 Hernflndez, the defendant ~hallenged the cnlistitntionalityof the composition of the grand jury on equal protectiongrounds and Sixth Amendment grounds. In Hertrnnclez the courtof appeals dids not recite the evidence establishing the under representation of a cognizable group, but conceded that the defendantestablished under representation of Hispanics with "statistical evi-and hence a disproportionate numher of Hispanicn~nnle.r--rIn otherwolds .. . 3nneonlv - - - -2haq -to-extend thelogic of m~ren slightly to reach the situation inDallas County. In Duren an e@lICif exemption fora discrete class of individuals resulted in theunderrepresentatiot~ of that class. In Dallas County, anin~plici! exe~nption for aU prospective jurors, as apractical matter, results in the under represeatationof the members of a discrete class on the jurypools. In principle there is little that distingnishesthe system successfully challenged in Duren andthe systeni currently in place in Dalhs County.Althongh the author of tllis articlereceatlychallenged theDallas County jury system on Sixth Amendment fair cross-sectiongrounds, the trial of that case resulted in a hvorable outcomc forthe defendant, and no appeal was taken. As a ~esult, as of the timeof the submission of this article, the Dalhs County jury systemremains ripe for a challenge. As for other counties, the key to makinga similar challenge will be the acquisition of the statistical evidence.In the Dallas Countylitigation, the Dallas Morning News prcpared an affidavit explaining its methodology and attached theunderlying data to that affidavit. For those who might want tomake a similar challenge in thek county, and who cannot afford tohire a statistician to condnct a similar analysis form scratch, a copyof the affidavit and underlying data might be a good workingmodel.