3 - Voice For The Defense Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

* w e , w$& under && Aimnilmest 332 13%03.. . . Udih itfair mss*e&on aan in silid cfiusaym); mrnq @t@-?$s8 intea k hehant bd the Stah. cMen& the si&ficanee in aa epl A &e, 4SO S.W. 2d 1147,849 ('Pa$. Cr. my &ow "ttdequafe ju$tifict&nan fortbe protectian chalienge afa substantialunder- App. 1970) ("It ia not.. . clearfrom the dispmp~te fepremtation of the rreprwntatiod 2s it cmxtes 8n fBfftr- record WMWT the jury canndmm classes behe eompata$.* Dwm rr &Wu- ence of Wtentional' digcrinrination. The had mote than a list Of the ge&temd vatri, 4%9 US. st 371 @nq&2ty l. hg~ape of tha tule ia icpprc~riate to an . . . at the rim of the sdacfiail"); me~tin$]~ inf&oil.ba@d dandatd, but it$ contelit bohmm P. Sfate, 467 S.W. 2d 247,a52 But with regard to 60 %de of edu- and the requ&mv&s ofa p h faeie we me= GI. App. 1971) r%& ddattm &onn* arr a method of proving cliscrim'ik are inrpaoi.baaadan JUAWWOY; may also phaw &at the percent- @F tian in iuq selecfian under Equal Rota- &. 5.03 [I) (a) and [bJ. Whiie persons wnmmed and impmeled tion, "If a diwi9 ~ufibhtly lare PjnaWy,Dcwn rr ahsailn;s~4 tmb- . . .wa& higher than the actual White-Bhk then it is unbly that it is dm ~kb' * e8 that both EqualProtection and @&I &g. ef ihe . . . ppulatIonU); J Q ~ a Z chance Or aaident, and, in *e ahnee af hm&ent &&mg- a p&a fa& &e, 473 S.W. 2dS30,531 m. Cr.4p. evidence to the eontrw, one muei con- g hnpac&b&-r"gu;rifig M, prod of 1971j rmis n~fbingm ths r~ord to chde yiat m@ or other cW@ated fw- purp~ki fi-baora; neither act,tudl inhtte the nmber afMedcan AmeticaDs E m en*ed iilW the @&ation procw." , pyob&Ie need be prowad; elr$ibIe to serve on junm in Wd CounW); ~~ 3. &&@4 430 %S. at and th, Menget need not be @ membr& &I$? V. Biate, 47Sr &W. 2d 31,m (Tm. 495, 8. f 3. of the mdempmmtd group. A deufal Cr. @ 1978 f%aks~ume [ma far 'To show that the. exelusion Fun$% of an ktintto & ~ ~ & e i r m & t jufy arl1ee11, of collm, me, as afedwal the Sixth Amendment fair cross-s&xion to rebu~ a prima facie case. See JUKY- eonstituiadsl regufrement, reBe& 8 worn requirement) is 'systematic' requircs only WORK, Id. at See. 5.03 (1 ). Wt,atevcr thc sectiotl ofthe popuiatim .. -'%uf*. . .Ule nruof of which feature of the svstem oro- elusive distinctim bctwccn an bbuall're aata adldued by the ep ellant Is toqten. - - - ;fud the m & ~ ~ m n ~ . . i. o&he i tectionvhllengs anda&ath Amendment t-ati~e a& &agmmtary*jl; md fkhnuid B* ptitaa Tach w e may be owareom Baly fais ~ss-Bectitrn chaltenge,~ aLFo Jba StrrE~~ S2 S.W. Zd 107, I20 (Ta, Cr. by a anwiing Wlat a &gniBa~ st%@ in- v. &%so& wpm, 439 U.S. .at 3&1, n. 26, App. 1976) ("Appemt does mt conterm
I had the opportunity to present such trial court denied our motion. "Many see that all criminal juries are more reprea challenge in an appointed capital case in judges are predisposed to reject jury chal- sentative by the use of multiple sources. 1982. We fded the motion m the appen- lenges. At issue are the actions of court The eventual use of multiple sources to dlx and had a pretrial heanng that mcluded personnel often including the judges supplement the voter registration list in testlmony of a sociologist from one of themselves. The in~tial reaction of many obtaining jury panels or special venires the localcolleges that blacks and Mexican- judges is to cons~der a jury challenge d~la- should be significantly beneficial to many Americans are racially Identifiable groups tory." JURYWORK, Id. Sect~on 5.01. or our future clients. A system that will and that in 1980 Taylor County had a Be that as it may, that question, by its increase the odds of acutaUy reaching the total of 69,499 persons who were eh~ble nature, appears to be the sort that requires ideal of "an impartial jury drawn from a to vote, that 59,236 of those were white, resolution by the appellate courts. At any cross-section of the community" in every 6,429 were Mexican-Amencdn and 3,834 rate, there was no appellate cons~deration criminal trial is an attainable goal. were black. of our particular challenge because we The testimony then related that out of were later offered an acceptable plea barthe 59,236 eligible whites,37,626 (63.5%) were registered; out of the 6,429 ehgtble gain. Had the case gone to trial, we would have seen that the record reflected the APPENDIX Mexican-Americans, 1,896 (29.5%) were registered; and out of the 3,834 eligible blacks 682 (17.8%) were registered. The clear meaning of these statistics was that while our jury selection system based on the voter registration list only excludes total number of Mexican-Americans, blacks and whites on the special velure. Our motion would have then been renewed at the conclusion of the voir dire. As mentioned, the important statistical testmny in our challenge came from a As one might imagine, the research material available m this broad area is voluminous. Below are citations to some additional material not citedin the article. Annot., "Construction and Applica- 36.5% (11,610) of the ehgible whites, it local sociologist. In my opinion it is cru- tion of Provisions of Jury Selection and serves to systematically exclude from cial to obtain, if at all possible, the assistconsideration for jury servlce 70.5% ance of a soc~olog~st in making such a (4,533) of the elig~ble Mexican Amer~cans challenge. Other potentlal sources of staand 82.2% (3,152) of the eligible blacks. tistical evidence are the Bureau of the Additionally, the trial court was made Cewus; the Data Services Division of the aware of the Unifonn Jury Selection and Secretary of State's office, the Southern Service Act of 1968," 17 ALR Fed. Annot., "Proof as to Exclusion of or Discnmmation Against Elig~ble Class or Race m Respect to Jury in CriminalCase," 1 ALR 2d 1291. Service Act, 13 Uniform Laws Annotated Legal Defense Fund, Atlanta Georgia: Annot., "Systematic Exclusion or Un- 509 (1980) which directs that the primary NAACP Legal Defense and Educational derrepresentation of Identifiable Group," source fur jurors, the voter registrat~on Fund, New York, N.Y.; Southwest Voter 9 Am. Jur. POF 2d 407. hst, shall be supplemented w~thadditional Registration Education Project, San names from other lists such as uthty cus- Antonio; as well as varlous other local Comment, "Criminal Zaw-The Fair tomers, taxpayers, motor vehicle regis- and state minority organizations. Cross-Section Requirement: Defendant's trations and drivers' licenses. We then I believe that the filing of a motion such Friend or Foe?" 4 West New Englond L. were able to get the county's computer as that in the appendix should be cons~d- Rev. 317 (1981). programmer, who feeds the names of per- ered in every capital case and certain other Daughtery, "Cross Sectionalismin Jury sons on the voter registration hst Into a senous felonies Whiie the law of jury Select~on Procedures After Taylor v. Loucomputer to select all jury panels for a selection pertaining to dwrimination and isiana," 43 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (1977). week, to acknowledge (rather grudging- underrepresentatlon applies in all criminal ly) in testimony that the computer could cases, a seems that the type of challenge Dogin & Tevelin, "Jury Systems of the be set up to be fed additional names from to the system outlined here should be Eighties: Toward a Fairer Cross-Section other lists such as those ment~oned above. reserved for those tougher cases we a11 and Increased Efficiency," 11 U. Tol. L. "Multiple list systems routinely produce handle occasionally. I also suggest that a Rev. 939 (1980). 80% inclusweness . . . Representat~on of trd court's den~al of the motion and subblacks and young people . . . has been im- sequent appeal on that hasismight provlde Jud~cial Conference of the Umted proved by supplementation w~th driver's a suitable case for the involvement of States, "Report of the Committee on the license lists." JURYWORK, supra, Sec- T.C D.L.A.'s Amlcus Cur~ae committee. Operation of the Jury System," reprinted tion 5.04 (1). , Accordmg to the bylaws one of our as Appendix to the Opinion in Foster v. There was also testlmony from the purposes is to "msure by rule oflaw those Sparks, 506 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1975). computer programmer and the D~str~ct ind~vidual rights guaranteed by the Texas Ka~rys, etal, "Jury Representativeness: Clerk that Taylor County does use the and Federal Constitutions in criminal A Mandate for Multtple Source Lists," 65 voter regntration hst as the sole source cases." As~de from striving for a truly rep- Cal. L. Rev. 776 (1977). for obtaming jurors and the trial court resentative jury from a fair cross-section took judicial notice that the defendant of the community m an individual case, Kennedy, "Constitutional Trends of was a member of the county's black pop- our broader goal should be to contmue to Systematic Exclusion in Grand and Petit ulation. Not surprisingly, however, the challenge this present system in order to Juries: 3 Nut. J. Oim. Def 277 (1977). February 19841VOICE for the Defense 43
Page 2 and 3: JOURNAL OF THE TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFEN
Page 4 and 5: President's Report 1 @e&@$g g ifmet
Page 6 and 7: several substantial federal constit
Page 8 and 9: ouWt that yow wse has merit and is
Page 10 and 11: Appeals within 10 days after certif
Page 12 and 13: FXAMIWATION CONTINUED 8. The voir d
Page 15 and 16: 1 SANFOIID KCULU3UGH, No. 351-83, O
Page 17 and 18: WILLIIW m~, No. 1008-82, Opinion on
Page 19 and 20: \ Neilv. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93
Page 21 and 22: Three excuses to exclude time p e t
Page 23 and 24: DARRELL WAYNE GREGG, No. 63,685, Re
Page 25 and 26: The Court also rejected the argumen
Page 27 and 28: KENNETH YORKO, No. A14-83-058-CR (1
Page 29 and 30: years) and indecency with a child (
Page 31 and 32: COMPETENCY HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN
Page 33 and 34: HENRY ESPINOZA, No. C14-82-635-CR (
Page 35: MATERIALS from page 14 391 US. at 5
Page 38 and 39: for suspension of this Court's orde
Page 40 and 41: MULTIPLE LISTING-- A CONSTITUTIONAL
Page 44 and 45: Munsteman, "'MultipIe Lists for Jur
Page 46 and 47: Fc . 1 -- Thoughts From Behind the
Page 48: I ADOLPHUS HOTEL 1321 Commerce, Dal

3 - Voice For The Defense Online

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?