Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

IIf oneis interested in makincafair crnssaection challeneeto the composition of the jury pool, one should raise the issue $awritten motion well in advance of trial. In order for the motion tohe taken seriously, oneshould attach the statistical datain the formof an affidavit to the motion and request a pretrial hearing.Hopefully, the prosecutor will choose the path of least resistance,stipulate to the accuracy of the data, and defend against the challengeon a purely legal basis. This will save one the time andexpense of putting on testimony concerning the stcttisticat data. Inaddition to the statistical evidence one will also have to insure thatevidence is put into the record concerning the manner in which thejury pools are compiled in one's own county, This may also beaccomplished by stipulation. Whether one proceeds by stipulationor live testimony, however, one must be careful to make the recordas complete as possible for appeal. Every appellate court will avoidthis thorny issue on the basis of procedural default if given theopportunity. In that vein, one must also remeo~ber to object to thevenire actually assigned to the case in question, establishing, forexample, that Hispanics are, in fact, under represented in the poolfrom which the defendant actually selected his jurors.Despite the merlts of one's claim and the adequacy ofone's record, no one can reasonably expect a trial judge to declarea countywide system for compiling the jury pools unconstitutional.Nevertheless, for cases which &ht ultimatelv result in a federalhabeas proceeding, especially capkcases, this issue is too good topass up. Perham if this issue is raised in enon& counties throughoutthk state, the state legislature even mi& be motivated t&esome remedial actionIITwo other articles from the Dallas Morning Newsaddressed this issue. One entitled "Duty Calls, Few Answer," piblishedon October 23,2000, reflected some oftheinformation gatheredby the Dallas Morning News concerning the financial dilemmamany individuals are placedin when sununonsed for jury duty. Theother article, entitled "No Excuses; published October 24, 2000,reflected the New Yo& experience in which jury pay was increasedand the sunlmons were enforced. In New York this greatlyincreased the representation of minorities on juries and insuredthat defendants received a jury pool reflecting a "fair crosssection"of the commimity.According to the Dallas Morning News article, 'ExtraMoney Helps El Paso Lure More Prospective Jurors," publishedOctober 24,2000, jury pay was increased to $40.00 per day, andthe percentage of people responding to the summons rose from22% to 46%.Eg., Smith u. Zkws, 311 US. 128,130 (1940).%ybr u. LoiiisMna,419 US. 522,530 (1975).Id,, at 538.Duren u Missouri, 439 U S 357,363-64 (1979).Id, at 367-68.SeeHernandez u. Te.ws, 347 U.8. 475 (1954).See Unifed States u Rodrigues 776 F.2d 1509, 1511,(11th Cii. 1985); Unitedskrtm a Cl@to,d, 640 F.2d 150, 155 (8thCir, 19811 UnitedSf#tm u. Tmt, 550 E2d 577,587 (Mth Cir. 1976).12SeeDur@1,439 U S at 363-6411.26.644 S.W.2d 875 Og. Ct. App. -Amarillo 1982); No. 0&97-00503-Cr @. Ct. App. - El Pam 2000)25% of the population in Dallas is Hispanic whereas only7% of those who report to jury duty in Dallas County are hispanic;19% of the population is AfricanAimerican whereas only 14% ofthose who report are African-American; 51% percent of the populationis white whereas 77% of those who report are wllite. In addition,the household income of 39% of the population is under$35,000 whereas only 13% of those who report have an incomeunder $35,000; the household income of 20% of the population isover $75,000 whereas 41% of those who report have a householdincome over $75,000.In conducting this analysis, the Dallas Morning News interviewedDonna Roach, the individual in charge of issuing the jury summonsfor the Crowley Courts Building. Ms. Roachexplained the State ofTexas provides herwith a "jury poop for Dallas County. This "jurypool" is computer data "downloaded" on a "c.d rom" that containsa List of Dallas County residents on the basis of voter registrationinformation compiled by the State, and driver's license remdscompiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety, who arebelieved to be qualif~ed jurors. This database of names is programmedto randomly generate the names which will comprise thejury snnunotisissuedfor any givenweek. The DallasMorningNewstracked the issuance of 13,612 sumions for the first week inMarch, 2000. It then randomly provided a questionnaire to 400 ofthose people who responded to the summons and reported for juryduty, and 400peoplewho failed torespond. Theresults ofits analysiswere based on this survey.The "key man" system used inTexas at the t ie consistedof the state district judge appoint thtee to Five persons to serve asjury commissioners. These jury commissioners would then selectprospective furors fro01 the community who fulfilled the variousstatutory requirements for being a grand juror. See CiudaAanosUnidmdeSan Juanu. HiMago CounQ Grat~dJ~iiyconmn~is~onms,622 f.2d 807,810-11 (5th Cir. 1980). This system of selection standsin contrast to a "jury wheel'' system by which the jurofs are randomlyselected.Generally, a criminal defendant is better off challengingthe composition of the jury pool under the Sixth Amendment.There are two reason for this. First, a prima facie showings underan "equal protection" challenge may be rebutted $ proof of anabsence to discriminate whereas under a Sixth Amendment challengeonce "systematic exclusion" is shown, the state must show"adequate justification" for the systematic exclnslon. See JusticeRehnquist's dissent inDuren. Because "systematic exclusion" doesnot necessarily entail intentional discrimination, one avoids theproblem of the State simply having the individuals responsible forcompiling the jury pool testify that they do not intentionally discriminateand thereby prevail. Second, a Sixth Amendment challengedoes not require that the defendant beamember of theunderrepresented group. See T'jtor u Louisiana, (male defendant snccessfullychallenges law that permits the exclusion of women); andPeters u. Ki& 407 U.S. 493 ( 1972) (case in which a white man waspermitted to raise a challenge concerning the exclusion of blacks).Duren, at 669.Those who ignore a jury summons are subject to a $100 to$1000 fine. Gov. C. g 62.0141.