Opinion ID: 2982291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grand Jury Foreperson

Text: As for Maddox’s equal protection claim based on the alleged lack of grand jury forepersons of color, he again has failed to make a prima facie showing. Though the district court in the Eastern District of Tennessee does not regularly track the racial composition of its grand jury forepersons, the magistrate judge reviewed past questionnaires and found that none of the five empaneled grand juries between 2003 and 2010 had an African-American foreperson, though one did include a black deputy foreperson. Even if this were enough to establish substantial underrepresentation, Maddox failed to argue anywhere that the selection process is susceptible to abuse or is not race-neutral. Not only - 10 - Case Nos. 11-5829/5837/5860/6191/6192/6196/6198, United States v. Miller, et al. is he silent on the issue, but the record contains no specific explanation of how jury forepersons are selected by the district court. See Fed. R. Crim. 6(c) (“The court will appoint one juror as the foreperson and another as the deputy foreperson.”). Without any allegations or evidence, we cannot simply assume impropriety by the court. Finally, the Supreme Court has cautioned that such claims may carry little weight, given the limited role of forepersons in the federal system. “So long as the grand jury itself is properly constituted, there is no risk that the appointment of any one of its members as foreman will distort the overall composition of the array or otherwise taint the operation of the judicial process.” Hobby, 468 U.S. at 348. As a result, Maddox’s equal protection claims fail.