U.S. v. Green

• Decision Date: 02 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. CRIM.02-10301-NG.,CRIM.02-10301-NG.
• Citation: U.S. v. Green, 389 F.Supp.2d 29 (D. Mass. 2005)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Darryl GREEN, Jonathan Hart, Edward Washington, Branden Morris, and, Torrance Green, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

389 F.Supp.2d 29

UNITED STATES of America, v. Darryl GREEN, Jonathan Hart, Edward Washington, Branden Morris, and, Torrance Green, Defendants.

No. CRIM.02-10301-NG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

September 2, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William C. Brennan, Jr., Brennan, Trainor, Billman & Bennett, LLP, Upper Marlboro, MD, Randolph M. Giola, Law Office Of Randolph Gioia, Boston, MA, Sarah Jennings Hunt, Cambridge, MA, Jeffrey B. O'Toole, Washington, DC, for Darryl Green, Defendant.

Christie M. Charles, George F. Gormley, P.C., Boston, MA, George F. Gormley, Boston, MA, for Jonathan Hart, Defendant.

John H. Cunha, Jr., Cunha & Holcomb, PC, Boston, MA, for Edward Washington, Defendant.

Patricia Garin Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin, Boston, MA, David P. Hoose, Katz, Sasson, Hoose & Turnbull, Springfield, MA, David J. Huss, Rapid City, SD, Melvin Norris, Mel Norris, Wayland, MA, Max D. Stern, Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin, Boston, MA, for Branden Morris, Defendant.

Theodore B. Heinrich, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, Lori J. Holik United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for USA, Plaintiff.

Wayne R Murphy, Murphy & Flaherty, Boston, MA, Walter B. Prince, Prince, Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP, Boston, MA, for Torrance Green, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' CHALLENGE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE JURY VENIRE

GERTNER, District Judge.

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I.  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................35
                 II.  BACKGROUND .........................................................................40
                      A.  Step One: Choice of a Federal Forum — from 20% African-American
                            Representation in Suffolk County to 7% African-American Representation
                            in the Eastern Division of the District of Massachusetts .....................40
                      B.  Steps Two Through Four: From 7% African-American Representation in
                            the Eastern Division to 3% on the Available Jury Wheel .......................42
                          1.  Step Two: From Source Lists to the Master Jury Wheel .......................42
                          2.  Steps Three and Four: Determining the "Available Pool" or the
                                "Qualified Wheel" ........................................................43
                      C.  Steps Five and Six: Jury Impanelment — Venire to Petit Jury Selection
                            from 3% to Nil ...............................................................45
                      D.  History of Minority Underrepresentation in Massachusetts and Related
                            Federal Litigation ...........................................................46
                          1.  The 1993 Boston Litigation .................................................46
                          2.  1994 Supreme Judicial Court Gender and Race Bias Report.....................47
                          3.  Federal Litigation Between 1984 and 1999 ...................................47
                      E.  Defendants' Case ...............................................................47
                III.  DISCUSSION .........................................................................49
                      A.  Fair Cross-Section Challenge ...................................................49
                          1.  Fair Cross-Section Framework ...............................................49
                              a.  Second Prong: Underrepresentation ......................................51
                                  (1) By What Statistical Means Shall the Exclusion of Members of
                                        a Cognizable Group Be Measured? ..................................51
                                  (2) How Much Exclusion of Members of a Cognizable Group Is
                                        Significant for Constitutional Purposes? .........................54
                              b.  Third Prong: Systematic Exclusion ......................................55
                                  (1) Is the Disparity Found under the Second Prong Caused by
                                        Happenstance (Which Is Not Actionable) or Is it Caused by
                                        Official Action or Inaction of Some Sort (Which May Be
                                        Actionable)? .....................................................55
                                  (2) Even if Official Misfeasance Contributes Somewhat to the
                                        Disparity in Representation, Do the Defendants Have to
                                        Show Precisely How Much of the Disparity Is Attributable
                                        to Such Factors? .................................................56
                              c.  Hybrid Approach ........................................................57
                          2.  Defendants' Case ...........................................................57
                              a.  First Prong: Distinctiveness ...........................................57
                              b.  Second Prong: Underrepresentation ......................................57
                              c.  Third Prong: Systematic Exclusion ......................................58
                                  (1) Shortcomings of The Resident Lists — Undercounting and
                                        Overcounting .....................................................59
                                  (2) Shortcomings of Summonsing — Demographics, Logistics and
                                        Nonresponses .....................................................60
                                      (a) Undeliverables .................................................61
                

                      (b) Nonrespondents .................................................61
                                  (3) Inactive Voter Lists ...............................................62
                          3.  Conclusion: Defendants Have Not Made Out A Constitutional
                                Violation ................................................................63
                      B.  Statutory Challenge ............................................................63
                          1.  The JSSA's Proportionality Requirement .....................................63
                          2.  "Substantial Failure to Comply" with the JSSA ..............................65
                              a.  What Amounts to a "Substantial" Violation of the Act?...................68
                              b.  Section 1863(b)(2)'s Duty to Supplement ................................69
                                  (1) The Statutory Language .............................................69
                                  (2) Legislative History ................................................69
                                  (3) The District of Massachusetts Resident List Exception...............71
                              c.  Have Defendants Proven a "Failure to Comply" Without
                                    Supplementation? .....................................................72
                              d.  Does Failure to Supplement the Resident Lists Amount to a
                                    Substantial Statutory Violation? .....................................73
                              e.  Supervisory Powers .....................................................74
                              f.  Remedy .................................................................75
                              g.  Afterward: The Government's Objections to the Proposed
                                    Remedy ...............................................................76
                 IV.  CONCLUSION .........................................................................79
                

I. INTRODUCTION¹

Darryl Green ("Green") and Branden Morris ("Morris") are African-American men who are likely to be tried before all white, or largely white, juries. Such an outcome should be profoundly troubling, to say the least. Indeed, the District of Massachusetts has wrung its collective hands over the problem of minority underrepresentation on its juries for over a decade. However significant the lament before, the prospect is uniquely chilling here: Green and Morris face the death penalty. Their all white, or largely white, juries could well decide whether they will live or die.

Morris and Green, along with three codefendants,² are charged with participating in a racketeering enterprise — the "Esmond Street Posse" — through which they allegedly sold crack cocaine and marijuana, protected their sales turf, and carried on a violent dispute with a rival gang. That dispute led to a number of murders and attempted murders during 2000 and 2001. The death of Terrell Gethers prompted the government to charge Morris and Green with murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and to seek the death penalty against them.

Defendants claim that the racial composition of the jury wheel³ for the Eastern Division of the District of Massachusetts ("Eastern Division") violates the Sixth Amendment and the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. (the "Act" or "JSSA").⁴ They allege that the federal officials use state resident lists that are inaccurate and out of date, particularly from the cities and towns with the highest percentage of African-Americans. They move to dismiss the charges against them, or, in the alternative, to stay the case until a jury can be assembled that comports with the Constitution and the JSSA.⁵

Defendants' claims are ironic: Massachusetts pioneered the use of resident lists in place of voting lists for jury selection precisely to maximize minority participation. But the duty to prepare and update these lists has remained an unfunded mandate, fulfilled with varying success across the District. According to defendants, the more affluent and whiter communities can afford to properly maintain the lists; the poorer⁶, more racially diverse communities cannot. Put simply, an Eastern Division resident has a better chance of getting on a jury if she hales from more racially and economically homogenous towns like Needham or Dover, than if she is from more racially and economically diverse towns like Lynn, Brockton or New Bedford. Residents of heavily African-American, poor, and urban communities, like Roxbury and Dorchester, may fare even worse than...