U.S. v. Test, Nos. 73-1337
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Arthur H. Bosworth II, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. and James L. Treece, U.S. Atty.; Before LEWIS, Chief Judge and SETH, HOLLOWAY, McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and DOYLE; LEWIS |
| Citation | 550 F.2d 577 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | 75-2001 and 75-1899,Nos. 73-1337,75-1773 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. TEST, Defendant-Appellant. Francis R. SALAZAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Sandoval CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cameron David BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant. |
Page 577
v.
John E. TEST, Defendant-Appellant.
Francis R. SALAZAR, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Enrique Sandoval CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Cameron David BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
Tenth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 12, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1976.
Page 580
Michael E. Tigar, Washington, D.C., Harold A. Haddon, Louis M. Fischer, Denver, Colo., and John Mage, for appellant Bishop and Cameron David Bishop, pro se, on the brief for appellant Bishop.
Walter L. Gerash and Robert C. Floyd, Denver, Colo. (Louis M. Fischer, Denver, Colo., with them on the brief), for John E. Test.
Robert L. Pitler of Levine, Pitler & Westerfeld, P. C., Denver, Colo., on brief for Francis R. Salazar.
E. Michael Canges of Canges & Shaver, Denver, Colo., on brief for Enrique Chavez.
Arthur H. Bosworth II, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. and James L. Treece, U.S. Atty., J. Terry Wiggins, Stephen E. Munsinger, C. Scott Crabtree, Asst. U.S. Attys., on brief for the U. S.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge and SETH, HOLLOWAY, McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
LEWIS, Chief Judge.
The above-captioned cases were consolidated for consideration of defendants' 1 individual
Page 581
challenges to the jury selection plan adopted by the district court for the District of Colorado as violative of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861 et seq., as amended (the Act), and the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court in Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28, 95 S.Ct. 749, 42 L.Ed.2d 786, defendants were allowed to inspect both the master and qualified jury wheels and the qualifying questionnaires returned by prospective jurors. Following a consolidated evidentiary hearing at which defendants presented documentary and testimonial evidence concerning the alleged defects in the Colorado jury selection plan, the district court concluded defendants had failed to meet their burden of proof. United States v. Test, D.Colo., 399 F.Supp. 683; United States v. Bishop, D.Colo., No. 69-CR-35, decided August 14, 1975 (unpublished opinion).Issues
Defendants Bishop and Salazar allege that Chicanos, blacks, and persons under forty years of age were "substantially underrepresented" on the master jury wheel in use during 1969 and early 1970 and that neither the grand nor petit juries drawn from that wheel were "selected at random from a fair cross section of the community" as required by the Act and the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. Similar challenges are raised by the remaining defendants (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Test" defendants) with respect to the underrepresentation of Chicanos and blacks on the master jury wheel in use from January 1972 through December 1974. 2 Bishop and Salazar also allege that certain of the excuse, exemption, and disqualification categories authorized by the Colorado jury selection plan are, both on their face and as applied, violative of the Act. 3 Since all of the defendants have challenged the Colorado jury selection plan on grounds that Chicanos and blacks were underrepresented on the master jury wheels, we will direct our attention to these common claims before considering the additional challenges raised by Bishop and Salazar.
I. Underrepresentation of Chicanos and Blacks.
A. The Colorado Jury Selection Plan.
As required by section 1863(b)(2) of the Act, the Colorado jury selection plan utilizes voter registration lists as the initial source of names for potential jurors. Names are selected from these lists at fixed intervals and placed into a master jury wheel, from which the qualified jury wheel is in turn selected at random. Defendants concede this selection process is mathematically random and the demographic composition of the master jury wheel accurately reflects the composition of the voter registration lists. 4 Defendants' challenges are
Page 582
therefore directed toward the alleged disparity between the proportion of Chicanos and blacks in the voting-age population of the Colorado judicial district, as evidenced by the 1970 census, and the proportion of Chicanos and blacks appearing on the voter registration lists (the primary source lists), as evidenced by their proportional representation on the master jury wheels.B. Defendants' Evidence.
Defendants' evidence on these issues for the periods in question consisted of judicially-noticed figures from the 1970 census, statistical abstracts compiled by defendants from the qualification questionnaires returned by prospective jurors, and expert testimony on the statistical significance of this data. This evidence may be summarized in the following tables:
A. Average of All Divisions on January 27, 1969 (sample size 12, 810) a/
Race Percentage in
Percentage on Voting- Statistical
Master Jury Wheel Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicano 6.935 10.3675 Significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Average of All Divisions on January 27, 1969 (sample size 2,840).
Race Percentage on Percentage in
Returned Voting- Statistical
Questionnaires Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
black 1.07 2.61 Significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Denver Division from January 1972 through June 1973 (sample size, 723)
Race Percentage on Percentage in
Returned Voting- Statistical
Questionnaires Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicano 4.88 8.93 Significant
black 1.94 3.00 Not Significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Denver Division from January 1973 through December 1974 (sample size, 2020)
Race Percentage on Percentage in
Returned Voting- Statistical
Questionnaires Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicano 6.73 8.93 Significant
black 2.48 3.00 Not Significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Denver Division on July 30, 1973 and May 29, 1974 (complete sample size,
2111)
Race Percentage on Percentage in
Returned Voting- Statistical
Questionnaires Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicano 6.20 8.93 Significant
black 1.94 3.00 Significant b/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Grand Junction Division on July 2, 1973 (sample size, 832)
Race Percentage on Percentage in
Returned Voting- Statistical
Questionnaires Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicano 4.81 8.89 Significant
black 0.00 0.21 Not Significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Pueblo Division on July 6, 1973 (sample size, 872)
Race Percentage on Percentage in
Returned Voting- Statistical
Questionnaires Aged Population Conclusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicano 12.84 16.29 Significant
black 1.49 2.90 Significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a/ In contrast to the tables below, these figures were compiled from an
examination of the actual Master Jury List rather than from returned juror
questionnaires.
b/ The apparent anomoly between this statistical conclusion and the
conclusion reached in Table C is allegedly attributable to the larger sample
size on this date. The contrary conclusion reached in Table D, however, is
unexplained.
Page 583
Setting aside for the moment the government's attempt to discredit these figures, 5 defendants' evidence establishes nothing more nor less than a very high statistical
Page 584
probability that the voter registration lists, of which the master and qualified jury wheels were concededly representative, contained comparatively smaller proportions of Chicanos and blacks than the general voting-age population. The mathematical conclusion that the disparity between these two figures is "statistically significant" does not, however, require an a priori finding that these deviations are "legally significant" or that the Colorado jury selection plan fails to comply with either statutory or constitutional requirements.C. The Statutory and Constitutional Standards.
Section 1861 of the Act provides:
It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1861 (emphasis added). This "policy" is implemented by the requirement of section 1862 that "(n)o citizen shall be excluded from service as a grand or petit juror in the district courts of the United States on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status." Section 1863(b)(2) directs the district courts to use voter registration lists or lists of actual voters as the initial sources of names for prospective jurors, with the former being the "preferred" source, and to "prescribe some other source or sources of names in addition to voter lists where necessary to foster the policy and protect the rights secured by sections 1861 and 1862." (Emphasis added).
The legislative history of the Act makes it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. Ponte, No. 84-1750
...v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212, 1216 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3546, 82 L.Ed.2d 849 (1984); United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 584 (10th Cir.1976). See also Zeigler, Young Adults as a Cognizable Group in Jury Selection, 76 U.Mich.L.Rev. 1045, 1071-72 (1978). A. Defin......
-
U.S. v. Cecil, Nos. 83-5148
...defective and that defendants have not established a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment. The court in United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 587, n. 10 (10th Cir.1976) made the same ... in adopting the voter registration lists as the "preferred source" of names for prospective juror......
-
Davis v. Warden, Joliet Correctional Inst. at Stateville, No. 88-1590
...of fairness and inclusiveness. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975); United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 594 (10th Cir.1976); Alvarado v. State, 486 Page 1013 P.2d 891 (Alaska 1971). Likewise those bodies are entitled to take into consideration ......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Nos. 81-1536
...34, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982), the Court referred to the "inherently slippery nature" of statistical evidence. See also United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 593 (10th "We will not accept movants strategic manipulation of their data for the sole purpose of fabricating a 'group' of such size as to......
-
Barber v. Ponte, No. 84-1750
...v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212, 1216 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3546, 82 L.Ed.2d 849 (1984); United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 584 (10th Cir.1976). See also Zeigler, Young Adults as a Cognizable Group in Jury Selection, 76 U.Mich.L.Rev. 1045, 1071-72 (1978). A. Defin......
-
U.S. v. Cecil, Nos. 83-5148
...defective and that defendants have not established a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment. The court in United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 587, n. 10 (10th Cir.1976) made the same ... in adopting the voter registration lists as the "preferred source" of names for prospective juror......
-
Davis v. Warden, Joliet Correctional Inst. at Stateville, No. 88-1590
...of fairness and inclusiveness. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975); United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 594 (10th Cir.1976); Alvarado v. State, 486 Page 1013 P.2d 891 (Alaska 1971). Likewise those bodies are entitled to take into consideration ......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Nos. 81-1536
...34, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982), the Court referred to the "inherently slippery nature" of statistical evidence. See also United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 593 (10th "We will not accept movants strategic manipulation of their data for the sole purpose of fabricating a 'group' of such size as to......