Opinion ID: 2982483
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fair Cross-Section Claim

Text: Darwich also argues he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury chosen from a fair cross-section of the community. “‘Whether a defendant has been denied his right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community is a mixed question of law and fact, which to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion. ... (c) Statement of the Evidence When the Proceedings Were Not Recorded or When a Transcript Is Unavailable. If the transcript of a hearing or trial is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant’s recollection. The statement must be served on the appellee, who may serve objections or proposed amendments within 14 days after being served. The statement and any objections or proposed amendments must then be submitted to the district court for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement must be included by the district clerk in the record on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2), (c). 14 United States v. Darwich Case No. 13-1723 we review de novo.’” United States v. Suggs, 531 F. App’x 609, 618 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The Sixth Amendment requires that a jury venire represent a fair cross-section of the community. Id. To show a prima facie violation of this requirement, [a defendant] must demonstrate “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Exclusion is “systematic” if it is “inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized.” Id. at 366, 99 S.Ct. 664. Once a defendant establishes a prima facie case, the government has the burden to justify the “infringement by showing attainment of a fair cross section to be incompatible with a significant state interest.” Id. at 368, 99 S.Ct. 664. Id. at 619. Darwich claims he asserted a fair cross-section objection at the same time that he asserted his Batson objection. Without a transcript of voir dire, however, we cannot determine whether Darwich in fact made a proper objection that is preserved for appeal. Nevertheless, even assuming he did, his claim fails on the merits. Darwich claims that his jury pool did not consist of a fair cross-section of eligible Arab and Muslim peers and that the jury selection procedures in the Eastern District of Michigan systematically exclude Arab and Muslim citizens from the district’s jury pools. Darwich’s claim fails because he has not presented any evidence of the elements required to establish a prima facie violation. Rather, his entire argument is based on conclusory allegations. Darwich does 15 United States v. Darwich Case No. 13-1723 state that his jury pool included only one prospective Arab juror and one juror who claimed to speak Arabic, but “[i]t is incumbent upon the defendant to show more than that a particular jury panel was unrepresentative.” Id. at 619 (citation omitted). Because Darwich failed to provide any evidence that a “systematic underrepresentation was ‘inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized[,]’” he cannot establish that he was denied his right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. We therefore decline to vacate his conviction and sentence on this ground. Id.9