Opinion ID: 2977086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fair and Reasonable Representation

Text: The second prong of the Duren test requires Petitioner to demonstrate that the representation of African Americans on Kent County venire panels was not fair and reasonable. Before the Michigan Supreme Court, Petitioner offered proof that in the six months preceding his trial, African Americans were underrepresented by 18 percent and underrepresented by 34 percent in the month his jury was selected. Additionally, Petitioner argued that in ten of the eleven months following his trial, African Americans were underrepresented by at least 15 percent. However, after applying a number of different measures of underrepresentation, including absolute and comparative disparities, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected these disparities as constitutionally insignificant. In Duren, the Supreme Court utilized the absolute disparity test to determine that women were underrepresented by 35 percent in venire panels in the Missouri district at issue. Duren, 439 U.S. at 365 n.23. The absolute disparity test compares the members of a distinctive group that are jury eligible with those that appear on the venire. However, in the years since Duren, the Court has not mandated that a particular method be used to measure underrepresentation in Sixth Amendment challenges. Consequently, courts across the country have utilized a number of methods, including absolute disparity and comparative disparity, to measure whether a distinctive group has been underrepresented on venire panels. See United States v. Forest, 355 F.3d 942, 954 (6th Cir. 2004) (absolute disparity); United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 798-99 (10th Cir. 2006) (absolute and comparative disparity). Applying the absolute disparity measurement of underrepresentation to the instant case, the disparity between jury-eligible African Americans in the community and those who appeared on Kent County venires is negligible. Here, 7.28 percent of African Americans in Kent County were eligible for jury service. During the relevant time period for Petitioner’s trial, 56 of the 929 individuals who appeared for venire panels in Kent County were African American. This represents No. 06-1463 Smith v. Berghuis Page 9 approximately six percent of the total pool of veniremen. Therefore, the absolute disparity between jury-eligible African Americans and those that actually appeared for venire panels was 1.28 percent. Courts across the country have held that absolute disparities in this range are not constitutionally significant for purposes of Duren’s underrepresentation requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Booker, No. 05-1929, 2007 WL 2492427, at  2 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding absolute disparity of 2.6 percent constitutionally insignificant); United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 658 (2d Cir. 1996) (finding absolute disparity of 2.68 percent a “constitutionally insignificant” disparity when examining Sixth Amendment challenge to composition of venire panel).2 However, the wisdom of applying the absolute disparity test to measure the underrepresentation of the small African American population in Kent County is questionable. See United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1247 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding the absolute disparities test to be inappropriate “when applied to an underrepresented group that is a small percentage of the total population . . . .”). As the Second Circuit noted in Foster v. Sparks, 506 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1975): [A]n intractable use of the absolute measure may, in certain circumstances . . . produce distorted results. For example, if a district with 10% non-white population has .5% non-whites in the wheel, the 9.5% disparity may not evoke disapproval under an absolute measure but may require it under a comparative measure. Id. at 835. Indeed, even if African Americans in Kent County were never called for jury service, the absolute disparity would still fall below the 10 percent figure that courts have found to be a threshold indicator of a constitutionally significant disparity. Where the distinctive group alleged to have been underrepresented is small, as is the case here, the comparative disparity test is the more appropriate measure of underrepresentation. Indeed, “[w]hile . . . both [absolute and comparative disparity] provide a simplified statistical shorthand for a complex issue, the comparative disparity calculation provides a more meaningful measure of systematic impact vis-a-vis the ‘distinctive’ group,” United States v. Rogers, 73 F.3d 774, 776 -77 (8th Cir. 1996), inasmuch as 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, 983 F.2d at 1231-32. In the instant case, African Americans were underrepresented on Kent County venire panels by 18 percent in the six months prior to Petitioner’s trial as measured by comparative disparity. In the month during which Petitioner went to trial, this comparative disparity increased to 34 percent. In other words, the number of African Americans on Kent County venire panels was 18 and 34 percent lower than one would have expected based on random selection factors. These figures, which are larger than those revealed by the absolute disparity test, are sufficient to demonstrate that the representation of African American veniremen in Kent County at the time of Petitioner’s trial was unfair and unreasonable. United States v. Rogers, 73 F.3d 774, 777 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding comparative disparity of over 30 percent to meet the underrepresentation prong of the Duren prima facie test where African Americans comprised only 1.87 percent of the jury-eligible population); Ramseur, 983 F.2d at 1232 (finding comparative disparity of 40 percent of African Americans to 2 See also United States v. Quinones, No. 93-10751, 1995 WL 29500, at  (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (finding absolute disparity of 10.05 percent for Latinos on venire panels constitutionally permissible); United States v. Suttiswad, 696 F.2d 645, 648 (9th Cir. 1982) (7.7 percent absolute disparity for Hispanics, 4.7 percent for Asians, 2.8 percent for African Americans found to be constitutionally permissible); United States v. Kleifgen, 557 F.2d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 1977) (2.9 percent for African Americans, 4.4 percent for males constitutionally permissible); United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1980) (2.8 percent for African Americans constitutionally permissible). No. 06-1463 Smith v. Berghuis Page 10 be sufficient to establish underrepresentation of African Americans in jury pool). Thus, Petitioner has established that African Americans were underrepresented on Kent County venire panels. Resolving the question of underrepresentation on Kent County venire panels, however, does not resolve the question of whether Petitioner has met his burden under AEDPA. To prevail under AEDPA, Petitioner must demonstrate not only that the Michigan Supreme Court was incorrect, but that its application of federal law was unreasonable. The Michigan Supreme Court found that Petitioner’s figures did not demonstrate that African Americans were significantly underrepresented on Kent County venire panels. After a cursory discussion of the absolute and comparative disparity tests, the supreme court concluded that “defendant’s statistical evidence failed to establish a legally significant disparity under either the absolute or comparative disparity tests.” Smith, 615 N.W.2d at 3. Other courts have reached the same conclusion when faced with such disparities. See, e.g., Johnson v. McCaughtry, 92 F.3d 585, 594 (7th Cir. 1996) (comparative disparity of 33 percent insufficient to satisfy second prong of Duren prima facie case). Because of the relatively small size of the African American population in Kent County, however, none of the applicable tests can appropriately measure the underrepresentation that occurred on Kent County venire panels. Rather, as the concurrence in Smith noted, “because the jury-eligible black population of Kent County is small, and the sample of the overall population represented by the jury pool is also small, none of the analytical methods are particularly well-suited to defendant’s case.” 615 N.W.2d at 11 (Cavanagh, J., concurring). In such cases, “[i]f a jury selection process appears ex ante likely to systematically exclude a distinctive group, that is, the system contains ‘non-benign’ factors, a court may essentially give a defendant the benefit of the doubt on underrepresentation, even if the system ex post proves to work no systematic exclusion.” Id. Other courts have similarly found significant underrepresentation in the context of small minority populations that would otherwise not satisfy the requisite burden under Duren where “nonbenign factors” may be operating to produce such underrepresentation. See United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1247-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 678 (2d Cir. 1990)). Thus, the Michigan Supreme Court properly examined Duren’s third prong given the significant risk of systematic exclusion of African Americans. However, for the reasons discussed below, we find that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law in concluding that Kent County’s jury selection process “work[ed] no systematic exclusion,” id., and that Petitioner therefore did not establish the prima facie case under Duren.