Berghuis v. Smith
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 1382,176 L. Ed. 2d 249 |
| Decision Date | 20 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1402.,08-1402. |
| Parties | Mary BERGHUIS, Warden, Petitioner, v. Diapolis SMITH. |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
B. Eric Restuccia, Solicitor General, Lansing, MI, for petitioner.
James Sterling Lawrence, Royal Oak, MI, for respondent.
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, B. Eric Restuccia, Michigan Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Lansing, MI, Joel D. McGormley, Division Chief, Appellate Division, State of Michigan, Timothy K. McMorrow, Special Assistant Attorney General, Appellate Chief, Kent County Prosecutor's Office, for petitioner.
James Sterling Lawrence, Royal Oak, MI, for respondent.
The Sixth Amendment secures to criminal defendants the right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources reflecting a fair cross section of the community. See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). The question presented in this case is whether that right was accorded to respondent Diapolis Smith, an African-American convicted of second-degree murder by an all-white jury in Kent County, Michigan in 1993. At the time of Smith's trial, African-Americans constituted 7.28% of Kent County's jury-eligible population, and 6% of the pool from which potential jurors were drawn.
In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), this Court described three showings a criminal defendant must make to establish a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement. He or she must show: "(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." Id., at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664. The first showing is, in most cases, easily made; the second and third are more likely to generate controversy.
The defendant in Duren readily met all three measures. He complained of the dearth of women in the Jackson County, Missouri, jury pool. To establish underrepresentation, he proved that women were 54% of the jury-eligible population, but accounted for only 26.7% of the persons summoned for jury service, and only 14.5% of the persons on the postsummons weekly venires from which jurors were drawn. To show the "systematic" cause of the underrepresentation, Duren pointed to Missouri's law exempting women from jury service, and to the manner in which Jackson County administered the exemption. Concluding that no significant state interest could justify Missouri's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrus v. Secretary of the Pa. Dep't of Corr.
...S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); Premo v. Moore, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 733, 178 L.Ed.2d 649 (2011); Berghuis v. Thompkins, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010); Renico v. Lett, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010); Berghuis v. Smith, ––– U.S. ––––, 130......
-
Prost v. Anderson
...S.Ct. 2788, 177 L.Ed.2d 592 (2010); Renico v. Lett, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010); Berghuis v. Smith, –––U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1382, 176 L.Ed.2d 249 (2010); Thaler v. Haynes, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1171, 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010). 15. Though offering no textual, conte......
-
Hill v. Humphrey
...Court.” Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010); see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1382, 1392, 1395–96, 176 L.Ed.2d 249 (2010). AEDPA established a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S.......
- United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, No. 08–1134.
-
Table of Cases
...Crim. App. 1989), §5:72 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), §8:11 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1382, 176 L.Ed.2d 249 (2010), §14:12 Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010), §§6:42.1.2, 6:43.1.1 Berghuis v......
-
Table of Cases
...Crim. App. 1989), §5:72 Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), §8:11 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1382, 176 L.Ed.2d 249 (2010), §14:12 Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010), §§6:42.1.2, 6:43.1.1 Berghuis v......
-
Criminal Justice Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, 2009 Term
...CitedApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 2499 (2010).Berghuis v. Smith, 560 U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 1382 (2010).Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010).Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. — (2010).City of Ontario v. Quo......