United States v. Guzman, No. 153

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtHAYS, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit
Citation468 F.2d 1245
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Paul GUZMAN, Appellant.
Decision Date08 November 1972
Docket NumberNo. 153,Docket 72-1524.

468 F.2d 1245 (1972)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Paul GUZMAN, Appellant.

No. 153, Docket 72-1524.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued September 27, 1972.

Decided November 8, 1972.


468 F.2d 1246

John W. Nields, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., George E. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Michael D. Ratner, New York City (Daniel L. Meyers, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Before HAYS, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered against Paul Guzman on March 15, 1972 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after a three day trial before United States District Court Judge Charles M. Metzner and a jury.

Guzman was found guilty of both counts of an indictment which charged him with having failed to report for his Armed Forces physical examination and for induction into the United States Armed Forces. Each offense is a violation of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C. § 462(a). Judge Metzner sentenced appellant to two years imprisonment on each of the two counts, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant was released on bail pending the outcome of this appeal.

The only issue on appeal is a challenge to the system of selecting grand and petit jurors in the Southern District of New York at the time of appellant's indictment and trial. Prior to his trial, Guzman raised this issue before the trial court and moved for an order directing that a hearing be held to determine whether the grand jury that indicted him and the panel from which his petit jury would be selected were chosen in violation of the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq., and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. He also asked for discovery of certain jury records, dismissal of the indictment and a stay in the prosecution of his case until the requested hearing was held.1 The trial court rejected all of his claims and denied his motion. 377 F.Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).

On appeal, Guzman again argues that the method by which his grand and petit juries were chosen denied him his right to be indicted and tried by juries drawn from a fair cross section of the community and denied him the equal protection of the law. His specific challenges are (1) that the Southern District Plan for Random Jury Selection, adopted pursuant to the Jury Selection Act,2 mandates

468 F.2d 1247
the use of voter registration lists as the sole source of names of people who ultimately will sit on the juries thus violating the Jury Selection Act because it results in an underrepresentation of people between the ages of 243 and 30 since they tend to register in fewer numbers than older voters; (2) that he was denied equal protection of the law because at the time of his trial, 18 to 20 year olds had the right to vote but were not on jury lists; and (3) that he should have been allowed discovery of certain grand jury questionnaires and an evidentiary hearing in order to substantiate his allegations.4

The court below rejected all of the appellant's claims, basing its decision on its opinion that the asserted age groups (18 to 20 and 24 to 30) were not "cognizable groups" for the purposes of challenges to jury selection procedures. 337 F. Supp. at 145-146. It therefore denied Guzman's motion for a hearing and for discovery, 337 F.Supp. at 146, and proceeded to trial.

We find it unnecessary to reach the issue of the "cognizability" of the asserted age groupings for the purposes of challenges to jury selection processes.5 As far as the claim that youth between the ages of 24 to 30 are underrepresented as a result of the Southern District Plan, we note that the underrepresentation, if in fact there is such underrepresentation, does not result from systematic exclusion by those who oversee the jury selection procedure. See United States v. Agueci, 310 F.2d 817, 833-834 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 959, 83 S.Ct. 1013, 10 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963). At the time of appellant's indictment

468 F.2d 1248
and trial people between the ages of 24 and 30 (who possessed the other minimal qualifications) were eligible to vote in the Southern District and their names were included in the lists from which grand and petit jurors were taken if they chose to register

The Jury Selection Act requires that grand and petit juries be selected from a random cross section of the community, 28 U.S.C. § 1861, and if this goal cannot be achieved through the use of voter (or voter registration) lists alone, the Act mandates the use of "other . . . sources of names . . . where necessary. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(2). Therefore...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 practice notes
  • Barber v. Ponte, No. 84-1750
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 18, 1985
    ...cert. denied, 410 U.S. 989, 93 S.Ct. 1500, 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973); United States v. Guzman, 337 F.Supp. 140, 143 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 468 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 937, 93 S.Ct. 1397, 35 L.Ed.2d 602 (1973). While we recognize that the boundaries of any age group are neces......
  • U.S. v. Cecil, Nos. 83-5148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 5, 1988
    ...(cited by government) (no violation where underrepresentation of blacks is "result of their own inaction"); United States v. Guzman, 468 F.2d 1245, 1248 (2d Cir.1972) (no supplementation required unless "obstacles [to register] are placed in the paths" of underrepresented group members); Un......
  • Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, No. 17-1758
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 17, 2019
    ...United States v. Orange , 447 F.3d 792, 798–99 (10th Cir. 2006) (permitting comparative disparity of 51.22%).2 United States v. Guzman , 468 F.2d 1245, 1247–49 (2d Cir. 1972) (approving the use of voter-registration lists as the sole source of names for jury selection); United States v. Ode......
  • State v. Avery, No. 34
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • February 1, 1980
    ...S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972). (Emphasis supplied.) 3 For instance, in United States v. Guzman, 337 F.Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y.1972), Aff'd 468 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 410 U.S. 937, 93 S.Ct. 1397, 35 L.Ed.2d 602 (1973), the trial court defined a "cognizable" group as one which......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
91 cases
  • Barber v. Ponte, No. 84-1750
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 18, 1985
    ...cert. denied, 410 U.S. 989, 93 S.Ct. 1500, 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973); United States v. Guzman, 337 F.Supp. 140, 143 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 468 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 937, 93 S.Ct. 1397, 35 L.Ed.2d 602 (1973). While we recognize that the boundaries of any age group are neces......
  • U.S. v. Cecil, Nos. 83-5148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 5, 1988
    ...(cited by government) (no violation where underrepresentation of blacks is "result of their own inaction"); United States v. Guzman, 468 F.2d 1245, 1248 (2d Cir.1972) (no supplementation required unless "obstacles [to register] are placed in the paths" of underrepresented group members); Un......
  • Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, No. 17-1758
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 17, 2019
    ...United States v. Orange , 447 F.3d 792, 798–99 (10th Cir. 2006) (permitting comparative disparity of 51.22%).2 United States v. Guzman , 468 F.2d 1245, 1247–49 (2d Cir. 1972) (approving the use of voter-registration lists as the sole source of names for jury selection); United States v. Ode......
  • State v. Avery, No. 34
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • February 1, 1980
    ...S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972). (Emphasis supplied.) 3 For instance, in United States v. Guzman, 337 F.Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y.1972), Aff'd 468 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 410 U.S. 937, 93 S.Ct. 1397, 35 L.Ed.2d 602 (1973), the trial court defined a "cognizable" group as one which......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT