Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided Berghuis v. Smith, a case in which the defendant claimed that the pool from which his jury was selected was not a fair cross section of the community. In my experience, it is not uncommon for a defendant, particularly a minority defendant, to look at the jury pool and say something like "I thought I was supposed to have a jury of my peers!" Since the issue comes up reasonably often, it's worth taking a look at the basic doctrine, which is as follows: 1. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury. 2. "[T]he American concept of the jury trial contemplates a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community." Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). 3. If a defendant can show that a "distinctive" group is significantly underrepresented in a jury pool as a result of "systematic exclusion," he has made a prima facie case that his fair cross section rights have been violated. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979). 4. Such a defendant is entitled to relief -- the exact nature of which may depend on the stage of the case -- unless the state can show that the discrepancy is the result of eligibility requirements or exemptions from service that "manifestly and primarily advance[]" a "a significant state interest." Id. Remember, all of this has to do with the jury pool, not with the selection of the jurors from the pool. Claims of discrimination [...]
Faculty Coordinators
