Opinion ID: 215949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Barnette's Statistical Argument

Text: The court rejected Barnette's statistical argument that discriminatory intent could be inferred from the number of African-Americans the government peremptorily struck relative to their numbers in the eligible jury pool. Id. at -11. The court began by noting that of the 63 eligible jurors available in the final pool, 16 were African-American, compromising 25% of the final venire. Id. at . Twelve of the 16 were randomly selected as jurors or alternate jurors during the final selection process. Id. Of those 12, two served on the jury and one served as an alternate, with the government striking seven and the defense striking two. Id. In selecting the jury itself, the government used a total of 11 of 20 possible strikes, striking six black and five white jurors; then, when picking the alternates, the government exercised both of its peremptory strikes, against a black female and a white female. Id. Thus, in total, the government used seven of its 22 strikes to strike 44% of the eligible black venirepersons, but accepted 25% of the eligible black potential jurors. Id. The district court noted that the percentage of black jurors that the government accepted reflected the percentage of African-Americans in the eligible jury pool. Id. The court also noted that the jury selection process demonstrated that no negative inference could be drawn from the pattern or timing of the government's strikes. Id. at .