U.S. v. Clay
| Decision Date | 07 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. CR. 99-137-N.,CR. 99-137-N. |
| Citation | 159 F.Supp.2d 1357 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Clarence CLAY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Louis V. Franklin, Sr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
Federal Defender, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.
Defendant Clarence Clay has challenged the jury selection procedure used to pick the trial jury that convicted him of drug crimes in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846. As relief, he requests that the court grant him a new trial. Clay's challenge was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody, who has now recommended that a new trial be granted. After consideration of the magistrate judge's well-reasoned recommendation and after an independent review of the record, the court concludes that the recommendation should be adopted and a new trial held.1
This case is one of several related to the Montgomery, Alabama end of a larger drug conspiracy. Clay is the cousin of John Riley, who organized the Montgomery operation. After severance from other defendants who went to trial, Clay was convicted of two counts of a 13-count indictment: he was convicted of joining the conspiracy led by Riley to distribute and possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs, mostly marijuana, and of using a communication facility to facilitate that conspiracy.
The events leading up to Clay's jury challenge are chronologically as follows: August 18, 1999: Clay, along with six co-defendants, was indicted for various violations of the Controlled Substance Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846. February 22, 2000: Clay, his attorneys, and the government attorneys appeared for jury selection. February 24: Clay filed a motion challenging the composition of his jury venire. February 25: Clay's jury trial begins, with the court reserving consideration of Clay's jury-challenge motion until after the trial. March 1: The jury convicted Clay. March 7: Clay filed a motion for new trial based on his earlier challenge to the jury venire. Clay therefore timely filed his objections to the process by which his petit jury was selected.2 He bases his challenge on the due process and equal protection clauses of the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment's guarantee of a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1861-1871 (JSSA), and the plan for the random selection of grand and petit jurors for the Middle District of Alabama.3
After the jury verdict, the court referred the jury-challenge motions to United States Magistrate Judge Coody for consideration and recommendation. After extensive discovery was taken, the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on December 20, 2000. Although the magistrate judge determined that there was no suggestion or evidence that any person involved in the jury-selection process had ever acted with discriminatory intent, he entered a recommendation on February 5, 2001, urging the court to grant Clay a new trial on the grounds that the implementation of the Middle District's jury selection plan substantially violated the JSSA. On February 20, 2001, both Clay and the government timely filed objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1), the court "shall make a de novo determination of those ... recommendations to which objection is made." Id. The court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." Id. This court, therefore, reviews the recommendation of the magistrate judge de novo.
The Middle District of Alabama covers 23 counties and is divided into three divisions: the northern division, the eastern division, and the southern division. The middle district adopted a written plan for jury selection pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 1863(a),4 which was approved by the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit on April 23, 1997.5 Every four years, under the plan, the court constructs a master jury wheel by randomly selecting at least 5 % of the registered voters of each of the counties in the district. The jury selection plan instructs the clerk of the court to select randomly from the master wheel a sufficient number of persons to maintain an adequate number of names in the qualified jury wheels for each of the district's divisions. The clerk may use a manual or computerized process to select names for the qualified wheels.6 Whatever process of selection is used, the mathematical odds of any one name being selected must be substantially equal.
After selecting names from the master wheel, the court clerk mails preliminary juror qualification questionnaires to each person whose name was drawn. The plan does not indicate what, if any, steps the clerk must take regarding questionnaires that are not returned or are undeliverable.
When the questionnaires are returned, the plan requires the chief judge of the district, or his designed, to use the questionnaires to determine whether an individual is qualified, exempt, or excused from jury service. Under the plan, a person is presumed to be qualified unless she or he fits into one or more of five enumerated exceptions.7 Those persons who are deemed qualified to serve as jurors are then placed into one of the qualified wheels based on their county of residence. The plan requires the northern division's qualified wheel to contain at least 600 names and the wheels for the southern and eastern divisions to contain at least 200 names each.
Because felony criminal trials in the district are held almost exclusively in Montgomery (the seat of the northern division of the district) whether or not the underlying offense occurred in the northern division, each criminal jury is composed of persons selected from all of the qualified wheels. When jurors are needed for a particular criminal term of court, the plan requires the clerk to select names randomly from each qualified wheel, and it mandates that the number of names drawn from each divisional wheel be in approximately the same proportion to the total number drawn as the number of names in the divisional wheel bears to the number of names in the master wheel.8
To select jurors, the plan contemplates that the clerk will use a combination of manual and computerized methods to make random selections from the qualified wheels. To select a panel of potential jurors for a criminal trial term, the clerk first chooses a "quotient number" for each division. A quotient number is the number of names in a wheel divided by the number of names needed for any particular drawing. The magistrate judge gives the following example: If the qualified wheel for the northern division contains 1,000 names and 20 names are needed from that division for a term of court, the quotient number would be 1,000 divided by 20, or 50.9
The clerk then draws a starting number at random from a deck of cards containing consecutively numbered cards up to the number of the quotient. The magistrate judge gives the following example by way of illustration: If the quotient is 50, then the clerk places cards numbered from one to 50 in a deck and randomly draws a card; if the number on the card that is drawn is 5, the clerk would select the fifth name from each divisional wheel, and then every fiftieth name thereafter.10
Next, the clerk enters the starting and quotient numbers into a computer program that selects names from each division's qualified wheel. A jury summons is sent to each individual selected. The plan, however, makes no provision for what steps, if any, the clerk must take regarding a returned or undeliverable summons.
Under the jury selection plan, jurors may, if summoned, petition for an excuse or exemption from jury service. Three provisions of the plan delineate the criteria for granting such petitions. First, the plan enables certain individuals to be excused from jury service;11 second, the plan permits certain individuals to have their service deferred upon request;12 and, third, the plan exempts certain individuals from jury service.13 In addition to these criteria and categories, the plan gives discretionary authority to any judge requiring a jury panel for a particular term of court to grant permanent excuses from jury service, and vests the clerk of the court with the authority to grant temporary excuses. Such permanently excused persons receive "P" designations.14
The plan further provides that, "The names of grand and petit jurors who are excused from a panel or court term for reasons of hardship or extreme inconvenience, or because they are in excess of the needs of the Court for that panel or term, will be put back in the appropriate qualified jury wheels where they will be subject to being redrawn for subsequent service."15
The clerk of the court is responsible for implementing the plan. She is assisted by the systems manager and the jury administrator. The systems manager maintains the district's computer facilities, including the programs that assist in jury selection.16 The jury administrator is responsible for evaluating completed preliminary juror qualification questionnaires, constructing a summons list for terms of court, issuing summonses for jury duty, referring requests for permanent excuses to the appropriate judges, and processing requests for temporary deferment of jury duty.
Up to and through the selection of Clay's petit, or trial, jury, the clerk's office almost always granted temporary deferrals of jury service to individuals who claimed that jury service would create undue hardship or inconvenience. Such temporarily deferred individuals were designated "K" jurors, and their names were removed from the summons list by the jury administrator.17 The names of these jurors were placed in a separate K file...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...state the following: "in not following the specific provisions of the statute, the trial judge was in error. United States v. Clay, 159 F.Supp.2d 1357 (M.D.Ala.2001)." ¶ 69. In Clay, the federal court granted a new trial because the jury selection plan for criminal cases violated the Jury S......
-
U.S. v. Carmichael, Criminal Action No. 2:03cr259-MHT.
...substantial violations of the JSSA revealed by a successful challenge to the district's 1997 jury plan. United States v. Clay, 159 F.Supp.2d 1357 (M.D.Ala.2001) (Thompson, J.). The district covers 23 counties and is divided into three divisions: the Northern Division, the Eastern Division, ......
-
U.S. v. Carmichael
...panels, which were provided to attorneys before jury selection. Prior to a successful jury challenge in 2001, in United States v. Clay, 159 F.Supp.2d 1357 (M.D.Ala.2001), the Jury Administrator granted almost all requests for deferral of jury service. The Jury Administrator then placed defe......
-
Burkette v. H.R. III, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 2:02 CV 403 MHT (WO).
...jury wheel by randomly selecting from the registered voters of each of the counties in the district. United States v. Clay, 159 F.Supp.2d 1357, 1359 (M.D.Ala.2001) (Thompson, J.). The jury selection plan instructs the clerk of the court to select randomly from the master wheel a sufficient ......