Opinion ID: 1830727
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: comparative disparity

Text: Courts frequently discuss the second method, comparative disparity, though they have been reluctant to adopt it. See, e.g., United States v. Hafen, 726 F.2d 21, 24 (C.A.1, 1984). Comparative disparity is calculated by dividing the absolute disparity by the population figure for a population group. It measures the diminished likelihood that members of an underrepresented group, when compared to the population as a whole, will be called for jury service. Ramseur, supra at 1231-1232. Here, the absolute disparity was 1.28 percent, so I divide that figure by the jury-eligible black population of Kent County, 7.28 percent, to arrive at a quotient of .18. Thus, defendant's jury pool had eighteen percent less black prospective jurors than could have been expected on the basis of the black population of Kent County. This figure also does not present the possibility of underrepresentation, as comparative disparities as large as forty percent have been held borderline, id., and only comparative disparities much larger have been indicative of a Sixth Amendment violation.... Shinault, supra at 1273 (48%, 50%, and almost 60%). As alluded to above, however, this test has its critics as well. A problem with this analysis is that [a] small variation in the figures used to calculate comparative disparity can produce a significant difference in the result.... Hafen, supra at 24. The instant case illustrates this point. For example, of the 929 prospective jurors in the pool, had twelve more been black, that is, had one percent changed, black prospective jurors would actually have been overrepresented in the pool. Thus, when the distinctive group's population is small, a small change in the jury pool distorts the proportional representation. This has led most courts to reject the comparative disparity analysis. See Royal, supra at 8 (collecting cases).