Opinion ID: 1749058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Point Six: Jury Selection Procedures

Text: Anderson argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the jury panel because jury selection procedures in Cape Girardeau County systematically exclude black jurors. It is well established that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to the unbiased selection of a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 487 (Mo. banc 1997). Anderson objected to the jury selection procedures at the end of voir dire. Anderson sought to quash the entire panel due to the fact that no black jurors were on the panel. The trial court denied this request. A defendant has the burden of showing a prima facie violation of the cross-section requirement. State v. Sumowski, 794 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Mo. banc 1990) (citing State v. Johnson, 606 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Mo. banc 1980)). In order to establish a prima facie case, defendant must show that the underrepresentation of other groups was due to a systematic exclusion in the selection process. Id. (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 367, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979)). The defendant must plead and prove a fatal departure from the statutory procedure for jury selection prior to the trial. Id. at 647-48 (citing State v. Bynum, 680 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Mo. banc 1984)). Anderson did not plead and prove a violation of the statutory procedure for jury selection prior to trial; he objected to the jury being all white and argued that the jury was not representative. He offered no evidence of any statutory violation. Nor did he offer statistical evidence that the jury selection procedure systematically excluded black jurors. Anderson relied solely on the jurors in the panel selected for this case. A single panel that fails to mirror the make-up of the community is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion. State v. Ringo, 30 S.W.3d 811, 820 (Mo. banc 2000) (citing State v. Garrett, 627 S.W.2d 635, 639 (Mo. banc 1982)). Additionally, Anderson argues that section 494.430, RSMo Supp.2008, which allows a judge, ex parte, to excuse jurors, resulted in a systematic exclusion of black jurors. Anderson contends that, because the statute does not require a judge to keep a record of the number and race of venirepersons excluded under section 494.430, there is no way to determine the extent to which this section contributes to the systematic exclusion of black individuals. There is nothing about section 494.430 that suggests that it would tend to lead to a systematic exclusion of certain jurors, absent an allegation of racial discrimination on the part of the judge, which Anderson does not make.