Title: Richardson v. Williams

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Clarence RICHARDSON v. Emment WILLIAMS

96-516                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 3, 1997


1.   Jury -- jury-selection process -- elements necessary to show
     prima facie violation of cross section requirement. -- In
     order to establish a prima facie violation of the requirement
     that an appellant in a civil trial be given an equal
     protection right to jury-selection procedures that produce
     juries from a representative cross section of his community,
     appellant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded
     is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the
     representation of this group in venires from which juries are
     selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number
     of such persons in the community; and (3) that this
     underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the
     group in the jury-selection process.  

2.   Jury -- fact that one identifiable group of individuals votes
     in lower proportion than remainder of population does not make
     jury-selection procedure illegal -- voter-registration lists
     may be used as sole source for selecting jury pools. -- Even
     if proportionally fewer blacks register to vote, the mere fact
     that one identifiable group of individuals votes in a lower
     proportion than the rest of the population does not make a
     jury-selection system illegal or unconstitutional; absent
     proof that obstacles are placed in the path of blacks
     attempting to register to vote, voter-registration lists may
     be used as the sole source for selecting jury pools.

3.   Jury -- jury-selection process proper -- no underrepresentaion
     due to systematic exclusion of distinctive group shown. --
     Appellant's argument that Arkansas's jury-selection process
     does not represent a fair cross section of the community
     because it excludes from the jury pool and petit jury all
     unregistered voters who, as citizens, would otherwise be
     qualified to serve as jurors, was without merit where
     appellant offered no proof that there had been exclusion of
     jurors based on any basis other than the mere failure to
     register to vote; because he failed to show any
     underrepresentation due to a systematic exclusion of a
     distinctive group, Ark. Code Ann.  16-32-103 (Repl. 1994) was
     constitutional as applied in this case. 

     Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; Harvey Yates, Judge;
affirmed.
     Wilson Law Firm, P.A., by:  E. Dion Wilson, for appellant.
     Rieves & Mayton, by:  Eric Newkirk, for appellee.
     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant Clarence Richardson brought suit against appellee
Emment Williams for personal injuries resulting from an automobile
accident.  The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in
Williams's favor.  Richardson appeals, and his sole argument for
reversal is that the trial court erred in rejecting his contention
that Arkansas's method of selecting jurors under Ark. Code Ann. 
16-32-103 (Repl. 1994) is unconstitutional by violating his rights
under the Sixth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.
     We initially point out that, in this civil proceeding,
Richardson has an equal protection right to jury-selection
procedures that produce juries from a representative cross section
of his community.  Cleveland v. State, 318 Ark. 738,