Opinion ID: 678215
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Array

Text: 4 The jury panel, convened on June 22, 1992, consisted of twenty-two veniremen, including one African-American and one Hispanic-American. Plaintiff contends that the population of Kalamazoo is 15.5 percent black and includes 2000 Koreans. Therefore, plaintiff concludes, the jury panel was not representative of the population of these minorities in the community. 5 Jury pools must be chosen at random from a fair cross-section of the community. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1861. To lodge an objection to the jury selection process, a plaintiff must follow the statutory requirement established in Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1867. 1 Plaintiff failed to comply with those requirements. 6 Upon review of the trial transcript, we find that plaintiff failed to object to the composition at the time the parties selected the jury. In fact, plaintiff never objected until August 10, 1992, twenty days after voir dire and eleven days after the verdict. The statute requires that an objection be made before voir dire begins or within seven days of discovery or seven days after the problem could have been discovered through diligence. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1867(c). Plaintiff's motion fails to allege her diligence in getting the information she needed to raise an objection. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1867(c). She merely asserts that she could not object until August 5, 1992, because until that date she did not know how many African-Americans lived in Kalamazoo or how many Koreans lived there. Further, plaintiff presents no sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title ... 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1867(d). This objection does not comply with the statutory procedure. The population in Kalamazoo lacks probative value as a basis for objecting to the jury array because the selection area for jury panels in the district court includes seven counties in southwestern Michigan. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of blacks and Koreans in the jury selection process, an element of a fair cross section claim. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1861; Floyd v. Garrison, 996 F.2d 947 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979)). 7 Because the procedures in Sec. 1867 are the exclusive means through which plaintiff may challenge the jury, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1867(e), her failure to make an objection as prescribed under the statute precludes consideration of this issue on appeal.