# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 28 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ru be n Gal vi n Gar ci a, al so kn own as R ub en Galv an Garci a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 16
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 30 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A ju r y co nv ic te d Ru be n Galv in Garci a of on e co un t of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e an d to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e,

in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 84 1( a)(1 ), an d on e co un t of di st rib ut io n of a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Garci a ap pe al s, arg ui ngth at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve al lo wed hi m to ex am in e th e li st of po te nt ia l juro rs 1

an d th at th e ve ni re di d no t rep res en t a f a i r c r o s s s e c ti on of th e co m m un it y

. W e

affi rm

.

Garci a’s tri al was he ld in Bi sm arck , No rth D a k o t a , t he n in th e So ut hwe st ern
Div is io n of th e Dis tri ct of Nor th Dak ot a. Afte r th e pa ne l of po te nt ia l juro rs was

swo rn an d be fo re tri al be g a n, Garci a’s co un se l arg ue d th at th e ve ni re di d no t

rep res en t a f

ai r cro ss sec ti on of t he co m m un it y . Spe ci fic al ly, he arg ue d:

[ W]e sh ou ld ha ve on th is po te nt ia l jury pa ne l at le as t th ree Nati ve Am eri can s and wit h ou r two In di an res erv at io ns in th is di st ric t[,] th ere

are no ne

. W it h th is la ck of m in or it y [rep res en ta ti on , it ] co nc ern s m e th at th e cl erk ’s of

fic e ha s no t dr awn a fai r cro ss se ct io n of th e co m m un it y fo r th e jury pan el

. . . .

The di st ric t co ur t cal le d as a wit ne ss th e jury ad m in is tra to r fo r th e Uni te d St at es
Dis tri ct Co ur t in Nor th Dako ta . The ad m in is tra to r ex pl ai ne d i n d et ai l t he Dis tri ct ’s
jury p la n an d te st ifi ed th at th e po ol of pr os pe ct iv e juro rs is ran do m ly drawn fro m a

li st of in di vi du al s who vo te d in th e la st pr es id en ti al el ect io n. W he n as ke d whe th er

“ we us ua ll y se e at le as t on e or two Nati ve Am eri can s on th e po te nt ia l jury pa ne l,” th e

a d mi n i s t r at or rep li ed

, “ I wou ld sa y no t.” The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Garci a’s

ob jecti on an d de te rm in ed th at th e Dis tri ct ’s “ jury pl an is raci al ly ne ut ral on it s face .”

It c on cl ud ed th at “ th is pa ne l has be en se le ct ed in a m an ne r co ns is te nt wit h o ur pl an [an d] th at th ere is no syste m at ic ex cl us io n of an y on e ba se d on race or ot he r im pr op er

co ns id erat io n.”

Garci a fir st arg ue s th at he sh ou ld ha ve be en al lo wed to in sp ect th e li st of

po te nt ia l juro rs

. A pr ov is io n in th e Ju ry Sel ect io n an d Serv ic e Act, 2 8 U.S.C.

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1

Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.

-2

-§ 18 62 (f), gi ve s de fen da nt s “ es se nt ia ll y an un qu al if ie d rig ht to in sp ect jury li st s.”

Test v

. U n i t e d S t a te s, 42 0 U.S. 28

, 30 (1 97 5) (p er cu ria m ). “ To av ai l hi m se lf [o r
he rs el f] of [th e] rig ht of acce ss to ot he rwis e un pu bl ic jury se le ct io n reco rd s, a li ti ga nt

ne ed on ly al le ge th at he [o r sh e] is pr ep ari ng a m ot io n ch al le ng in g th e jury se le ct io n

pr oc ed ur es .” Uni te d St at es v. St an ko

, 52 8 F.3 d 58 1, 58 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Ald en , 77 6 F.2 d 77 1, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 )) ( al te rat io n in Ald en ).

Garci a di d no t as k to in sp ect th e li st of po te nt ia l juro rs , no r di d he al le ge th at he was

pr ep ari ng a m ot io n to ch al le ng e th e jury s el ect io n p ro ced ur es or ot he rwis e in di cat e

to th e di st ric t co ur t th at he so ug ht th e jury li st

. Garci a th us fai le d to av ai l hi m se lf of

th e rig ht t o i ns pe ct th e jury se le ct io n reco rd s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

fai li ng to ord er su a s

po nt e th at th os e rec or ds be m ad e av ai la bl e.

Garci a arg ue s th at th e jury pa ne l di d no t re p r e se nt a fai r cro ss se ct io n of th e

co m m un it y

. He cl ai m s th at th e jury se le ct io n pr oc es s im pr op erl y ex cl ud ed Nati ve

Am eri can s from th e v en ire , in vi ol at io n o f hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh ts

. To prev ai l

on th is cl ai m , Ga rci a m

us t pr ov e: “ (1 ) Nati ve Am eri can s a r e a di st in ct iv e gr ou p in

th e co m m un it y ; (2 ) th ei r rep res en ta ti on in hi s ve ni re was no t fai r an d reas on ab le in

rel at io n to th ei r rep res en ta ti on in th e co m m un it y ; an d (3 ) th ei r un de r-re pr es en ta ti on

res ul te d fro m th ei r syste m at ic ex cl us io n f ro m th e jury-sel ect io n pr oc es s.” Uni te d

St at es v. Mo rin , 33 8 F .3d 83 8, 8 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Even ass um in g t ha t Garcia ha s

es ta bl is he d th e fi r s t two el em en ts

, he can no t sh ow th at Nati ve Am eri can s are
syste m at ic al ly ex cl ud ed fro m th e jury se le ct io n pr oc es s in th e Dis tri ct of Nor th

Dak ot a. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly up he l d N o r t h D ak ot a’s jury se le ct io n pl an , whi ch

, as

m en ti on ed ab ov e, dr aws it s po ol s of pr os pe ct iv e juro rs ran do m ly fro m li st s of pe rs on s
who vo te d in th e la s t p r e s i d e n ti al el ect io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Great walk er, 35 6

F.3 d 90 8, 91 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (p er cu ria m ); Mo rin

, 33 8 F.3 d at 84 3- 44

. W e ha ve sa id

th at “ [a]bs en t p r o o f t h a t Nati ve Am eri can s, in pa rti cu la r, face ob st acl es to vo te r

reg is tra ti on in pr es id en ti al el ect io ns , et hn ic an d raci al di sp ari ti es be twee n th e ge ne ral

po pu la ti on an d jury po ol s do no t by th em se lv es in va li da te th e us e of vo te r reg is tra ti on

li st s an d can no t es ta bl is h th e syste mat i c ex cl us io n of al le ge dl y un de r-re pr es en te d

-3

-gr ou ps .” Great walk er, 35 6 F.3 d at 91 1 (q uo ti ng Mo rin

, 33 8 F.3 d at 84 4)

. Garci a ha s

no t at te m pt ed to es ta bl is h th at Nati ve Am eri can s face d ob st acl es to reg is te rin g to vo te

in th e pr es i d e n t ia l el ect io n, an d he th us ha s fai le d to sh ow th at Nati ve Am eri can s

were s y st em at ic al ly excl ud ed fro m th e jury sel ect io n p ro ces s.

Garci a al so arg ue s th at th e co m po si ti on of th e jury vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht to eq ua l p r o t e c t i o n

. “ In or de r to m ak e ou t a pr im a faci e cas e of an eq ua l

pr ot ect io n vi ol at io n in th e c o mp o si ti on of a jury, a de fen da nt m us t sh ow th at an
id en ti fia bl e, di st in ct cl as s ha s be en subs tant ia ll y un de r-re pr es en te d in th e so ur ce fro m
whi ch juro rs ha ve be en dr awn ov er a si gn ifi can t pe rio d of ti me. ” Uni te d St at es v.

Hor ne , 4 F.3 d 57 9, 58 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (ci ti ng Cas ta ne da v. Part id a, 43 0 U.S. 48 2,

49 4 (1 97 7) ). Garci a arg ue s th at th e jury ad m in is tra to r’s te st im on y th at th ere were no t

us ua ll y “ at le as t on e or two Nati ve Am eri can s on th e po te nt ia l jury pa ne l” es ta bl is he s

a syste m at ic ex cl us io n of Nati ve Am eri can s fro m ve ni res

. Tha t te st im on y al on e,
ho wev er, do es no t co ns ti tu te a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at Nati ve Am eri can s ha ve be en

su bs ta nt ia ll y un de r-re pr es en te d fro m th e ve ni res ov er a s i gn ifi can t pe rio d of ti m e.
Garci a ha s no t pr es en te d ev id en ce sh owi ng th e nu m be r of Nati ve Am eri can s who li ve

in th e So ut hwe st ern Div is io n of th e Dis tri ct of Nor th Dak ot a or th e nu m be r of Nati ve

A merica ns who ha ve se rv ed in it s ve ni res ov er ti m e. He li ke wis e ha s n o t s h o w n a
di ffer en ce be twee n th e pe rcen ta ge of Nati ve Am eri can s in th e Div is io n’s po pu la ti on

an d t he pe rcen ta ge of Nati ve Am eri can s in th e Div is io n’s ve ni re. Acco rd in gl y , hi s

eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m m

us t fai l. Co m

pa re Cas ta ne da

, 43 0 U.S. at 49 5 (h ol di ng th at

th e r e s p o n d en t’s sh owi ng “ th at th e po pu la ti on of th e co un ty was 79 .1% Mex ic an

Am eri can , bu t t ha t, o ve r an 11 -y ear per io d, on ly 39% o f th e p ers on s s um m on ed for

gr an d jury se r v i c e w ere Mex ic an -Am eri can ” es ta bl is he d a pr im a faci e cas e of

di sc riminat io n ag ai ns t Mex ic an -Am eri can s i n th e co un ty’ s gr an d jury se le ct io n

pr oc es s)

, wit h Hor ne , 4 F.3 d at 58 8 (h ol di ng th at a sh owi ng th at th e di vi si on ’s ve ni re
du r i n g a two -m on th pe rio d was 1.4 % Afri can -Am eri can an d th at th e di vi si on ’s

po pu la ti on was 2.9 % Afri can -Am eri can pr es en te d to o sl ig ht a st at is ti cal de vi at io n to

-4

-es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n a ga in st Afri can -Am eri can s in th e

di vi si on ’s ven ire ).

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-