Russell v. Wyrick, 82-1047C (4).
| Decision Date | 02 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1047C (4).,82-1047C (4). |
| Citation | 566 F. Supp. 1075 |
| Parties | James RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. Donald WYRICK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
James F. Sanders, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Jay D. Haden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant.
In February, 1978, a jury in Butler County, Missouri, convicted James Russell of rape and sodomy. Russell was sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years for the rape charge and 15 years for the charge of sodomy. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Russell's conviction on direct appeal and the Butler County Circuit Court refused to vacate Russell's conviction by denying his motion under Mo.S.Ct.R. 27.26. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Russell's Rule 27.26 motion. Russell next filed a writ of habeas corpus in this Court asserting several grounds for relief. On December 13, 1982, this Court issued an order and memorandum that rejected all but one of Russell's arguments for habeas relief. The Court was unable to make an informed decision on Russell's contention that the jury that convicted him had been improperly selected by the Butler County Sheriff, violating Russell's right to due process.
The Court scheduled a hearing on the jury issue alone and allowed Russell to present whatever evidence he had in support of his position. The Court also appointed an attorney to assist Russell in the presentation of his evidence. Basically, what the Court sought to determine by the evidentiary hearing was whether the jury selection involved in the instant case falls within the procedures proscribed by the court of appeals for this circuit in Henson v. Wyrick, 634 F.2d 1080 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 958, 101 S.Ct. 1417, 67 L.Ed.2d 383 (1981). Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court finds that the jury selection procedure used by the Butler County Sheriff's Office in the present case did not violate Russell's right to due process.
Based on the evidentiary hearing held before this Court, Russell's state court trial transcript, and the posthearing legal memoranda filed by the parties in this action, the Court makes the following findings of fact.
2. Russell was tried and convicted in the Butler County Circuit Court but the Butler County Sheriff's Office had no involvement in the investigation of the crimes charged against Russell. The criminal investigation was conducted by the Poplar Bluff City Police Department and only Poplar Bluff police officers testified against Russell at his trial.
3. For Russell's state court criminal trial special veniremen were called as prospective jurors. However, Sheriff Stout himself had nothing to do with the selection process. Sheriff Stout delegated the selection of special veniremen to Deputy Owens who was directed merely to find the number of prospective jurors needed. Deputy Owens testified at the hearing that when he was told to find additional veniremen, he did not know whether he was calling veniremen for a civil or a criminal trial or the parties participating in the trial. As in the case of Sheriff Stout, Deputy Owens was not involved in the investigation or the prosecution of the criminal charges against Russell.
4. Deputy Owens usually obtained special veniremen from a list kept at the Sheriff's office that consisted of about 25 names of people known to the Sheriff's Department to be available on short notice to serve as jurors. Deputy Owens testified that he was familiar with the names of a few of the special veniremen but of the few that he knew only one was summoned for jury duty for Russell's criminal trial.
5. From the evidence adduced at the hearing and contained in the record, the Court is convinced that the method of jury selection used by the Butler County Sheriff's Office was consistently implemented in all criminal and civil cases without regard to the predispositions of the prospective jurors.
1. First, the Court recognizes the prehearing motion filed by Russell that requested the Court to relieve him of the burden of having to show cause for why he did not object to the jury selection process at trial and resulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Wyrick, 83-2002
...634 F.2d 1080 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 958, 101 S.Ct. 1417, 67 L.Ed.2d 383 (1981). The district court 1 denied relief, 566 F.Supp. 1075, and Russell Missouri law requires the Jury Commission to call citizens to be jurors. If absences and excuses for cause reduce the list of ju......