Opinion ID: 343369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Excuses, Exemptions, and Disqualifications

Text: 66  Movants have also mounted a two-pronged assault on the juror excuse, exemption, and disqualification procedures used in this district. First, they charge that the categories of excuses, exemptions, and disqualifications are on their face violative of 28 U.S.C. § 1861, which requires 'random selection' of jurors. Second, they allege that the categories 'have been administered in a haphazard and arbitrary fashion, thus preventing the securance of a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community . . . .' 67 Specifically, movants observe that at the time of their indictments and at the time of Salazar's trial, persons between the ages of 18 and 21 were not eligible for jury service in this district. It is true that the jury plan did exclude such persons, but it did so pursuant to the statute then in force (28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(1) (1970)), and the constitutionality of this statute was uniformly upheld. (See, e. g., United States v. McVean, 436 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 822 (, 92 S.Ct. 45, 30 L.Ed.2d 50,) reh. denied, 404 U.S. 952 (, 92 S.Ct. 277, 30 L.Ed.2d 269) (1971); United States v. Arnett, 342 F.Supp. 1255 (D.Mass.1970); United States v. Gargan, 314 F.Supp. 414 (W.D.Wis.1970), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Gast, 457 F.2d 141 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 969 (, 92 S.Ct. 2426, 32 L.Ed.2d 668) (1972)) 7 Next, movants challenge the exclusion of persons who have not resided within the district for at least one year. This provision of the district's jury plan is also authorized by statute (28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(1)), and this section has also withstood constitutional attack. (See, e. g., United States v. Gast, supra at 142-43) 8 68 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(5), the jury plan excludes all persons who have a charge pending against them for the commission of a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. This 'disqualification is intended to assure the probity of the jury.' (United States v. Arnett, supra at 1261) The reasons for movants' challenge to this provision are beyond our comprehension. 69  The fourth ground for attack is that the plan effectively excludes from petit jury service all persons who reside in the Pueblo and Grand Junction divisions, because the vast majority of the trials in this district are held in the Denver division. But the partitioning of a district into jury divisions is sanctioned by the statute (28 U.S.C. §§ 1863(a) and 1869(c)), and is clearly not unconstitutional, absent evidence that some cognizable group has been systematically excluded by 'gerrymandering' the division lines. (See United States v. Test, supra at (686), slip opinion at 3 n.2; see also United States v. Ponder, 444 F.2d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 918 (, 92 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed.2d 788) (1972); cf. United States v. Lewis,504 F.2d 92, 99 (6th Cir. 1974)) 70  Movants also contest the plan's disqualification of persons unable to read, write and understand the English language with sufficient proficiency to complete the juror qualification form. This provision is mandated by the Act. (28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(2); see also United States v. Tijerina, 446 F.2d 675 (10th Cir. 1971); United States v. Test, supra at (691), slip opinion at 8 n.7) Since movants do not suggest that the persons disqualified by this provision constitute a cognizable group and since there is no evidence that the 'systematic exclusion' of some other cognizable group results from this disqualification, we hold that § 1865(b)(2) is constitutional. (See also United States v. Valentine, 288 F.Supp. 957, 970 (D.P.R.1968)) 71  Movants' next contention is that under the jury plan certain classes of persons are automatically excused from jury service upon request without a specific factual showing of 'undue hardship or extreme inconvenience.' These classes include: (1) women who have legal custody of a child or children under the age of ten years; (2) sole proprietors; and (3) persons who do not have transportation available to attend court sessions. Apparently, movants believe that the statutory declaration of policy in 28 U.S.C. § 1861 precludes this district from excusing members of any 'describable,' which is not to say legally cognizable, group. Such a construction is much too severe. The statute expressly permits the court to specify in its plan those groups of persons who shall be excused on individual requests and contemplates that such excuses will be granted without inquiring into the circumstances of each particular case. (28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(5)) The presumption of 'undue hardship or extreme inconvenience' which attaches to specified groups is founded upon common sense and experience. So long as such excuse categories are reasonably defined and do not result in either 'substantial underrepresentation' or 'systematic exclusion' of some cognizable group or groups, then the categories are both statutorily and constitutionally permissible. (See, e. g., Government of the Canal Zone v. Scott, 502 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir. 1974)) 72  As regards sole proprietors and persons without adequate transportation, movants have offered no evidence tending to show the cognizability of these groups or the correlation of these groups to some other class of persons that is legally cognizable. The presumption of hardship and inconvenience which the plan attaches to these two groups is, in our view, reasonable. (See United States v. Grey, 355 F.Supp. 529, 531 (W.D.Okl.1973); cf. United States v. Lewis, supra at 99; Government of the Canal Zone v. Scott, supra at 569; United States v. Arnett, supra at 1261) 73 Similarly, excuses for women having custody of young children has been consistently upheld against statutory and constitutional challenges. (See, e. g., United States v. Eskew, 460 F.2d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Briggs, supra at 1362) Nor do we find any support for movants' position in the recent Supreme Court opinion in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690) (1975). There the Court struck down a state statute which required women to affirmatively express their desire to serve as jurors before their names would be placed in the jury wheel. The Court held that the 'exemption' worked effectively to exclude women from jury service solely on the basis of their sex. But the plan of this district excuses women only upon their request and not solely because of their sex. All women, otherwise qualified, are presumptively eligible for jury service in this district, and the excuse which they may be granted is predicated on their actual, and not presumed, role in the home. In short, we draw no inference from Taylor that the excuse category challenged here is unconstitutional. 74  The remaining excuse, exemption, and disqualification categories which movants have attacked are all authorized by the Jury Selection and Service Act. As in the case of the claims discussed and rejected above, we have been offered no evidence that any of these categories result in substantial underrepresentation or systematic exclusion of any legally distinctive group. (See especially United States v. Grey, supra ) Consequently, we reject these claims without further comment. 75  The final issue raised by Bishop and Salazar relates to their allegations that the excuse, exemption, and disqualification categories have been administered in a 'haphazard and arbitrary fashion.' The only evidence offered in support of this claim is a group of juror qualification questionnaires, some of which were incorrectly coded by the jury clerks. But in none of these questionnaires was a prospective juror removed from the jury wheel when he or she was in fact qualified and not entitled to some excuse or exemption under the plan. We believe, and so hold, that the human errors in administration cited by movants here do not constitute a 'substantial failure to comply with the provisions' of the Jury Selection and Service Act. Moreover, movants have not endeavored to prove that these errors have excluded or caused the underrepresentation of any cognizable group. . . . 76 The judgment of the district court regarding each of the issues raised on appeal is therefore affirmed.