Opinion ID: 1980708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fair Cross-Section

Text: The defendant next argues that the venire from which the jury was chosen was not a fair cross-section of the community since it contained no African-Americans. Defense counsel made a timely oral challenge of the jury panel prior to the beginning of voir dire. The trial court, however, proceeded to rule on the oral motion without requiring it in writing. The State argues that, by failing to make a written motion, the defendant has waived any challenge to the venire. (See 725 ILCS 5/114-3(b) (West 1994) (motion to discharge a jury panel must be in writing).) Defendant has not waived his challenge regarding the jury's racial makeup, however, since the oral motion was made and ruled upon without objection by the State. In order to show a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, a defendant must show: (1) the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community, (2) the group's representation in the venire is not fair and reasonable in comparison to the group's representation in the community, and (3) the under-representation is due to systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process. ( Duren v. Missouri (1979), 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579; People v. Peeples (1993), 155 Ill.2d 422, 450, 186 Ill.Dec. 341, 616 N.E.2d 294.) Defendant has failed to state a prima facie challenge because he is unable to fulfill the second and third elements. African-Americans are a distinctive group but they comprised no more than 2% of the population of Du Page County. Therefore it is fair and reasonable that some venires in Du Page County will lack African-Americans. Furthermore, defendant has shown no evidence that African-Americans were systematically excluded from jury service in Du Page County beyond his mere assertion to that effect.