Opinion ID: 2669163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Daniel Maumau’s Challenge and the District

Text: Court’s Ruling Mr. Daniel Maumau challenged this process under 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) (2006), and the district court allowed defense counsel to review the e-mail replies. After reviewing them, defense counsel filed a sealed supplemental affidavit. There counsel asserted that “about twenty of th[e]se explanations [in the e-mails] involve[d] individuals who if subjected to personal questioning by the court may 22 Mr. Tuai and Mr. Toki join in Mr. Daniel Maumau’s jury-selection argument. Tuai’s Opening Br. at 47; Toki’s Opening Br. at 1. 69 not have qualified as hardship excuses.” Appellee Supp. App. at 2. Defense counsel then identified eight potential jurors who had been excused for subjective criteria. See id. at 2. Again, the district court conducted a conference to address defense counsel’s continued concern. After the conference, the district court found that the procedure was proper and that any possible statutory deviation would not have involved a substantial violation. The district court added that “there [was] no evidence that the venire [was] anything other than a random cross section of the community” and that “[t]he jury administrator’s excusals in no way altered or skewed the composition of the venire.” Toki R. vol. 1, pt. 4, at 711-12. Of the venirepersons summoned, 80 were selected and 15 were selected as jurors.