Opinion ID: 71892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: composition of the jury venire

Text: 72 After completing its voir dire examination, the City challenged the racial composition of the jury venire based on the way jury rolls are drawn up in the Northern District [of Alabama]. However the City did not raise any equal protection challenge to the venire on the grounds that it was comprised of white holdover jurors until the City filed its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. 73 The Jury Service and Selection Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq., governs the selection of federal juries. It provides that juries should be selected at random from a fair cross section of the community, § 1861, and outlaws racial discrimination in jury selection, § 1862. In other words, the Act provides the statutory method for enforcing the constitutional rights of litigants in the jury selection process. It also provides a specific method by which challenges to a civil petit jury may be raised: 74 § 1867. Challenging compliance with selection procedures 75 .... 76 (c) In civil cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the party discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor, whichever is earlier, any party may move to stay the proceedings on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the petit jury. 77 .... 78 (e) The procedures prescribed by this section shall be the exclusive means by which a person accused of a Federal crime, the Attorney General of the United States or a party in a civil case may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury was not selected in conformity with the provisions of this title. 79 Id. § 1867(c) & (e) (emphasis added). 80 In United States v. Green, 742 F.2d 609, 612 (11th Cir.1984), this Court held that a criminal defendant's failure to comply with the provisions of § 1867 precluded him from raising on appeal a constitutional challenge to the petit jury venire. We held that [i]n the absence of strict compliance, Green's attempt to challenge the jury venire on constitutional grounds is without legal effect and is futile. Id. Green was a criminal case, but it would be anomalous if criminal defendants were held to stricter compliance with § 1867 than civil litigants. The City's equal protection objection to use of an all-white holdover venire was not in compliance with § 1867, because it was not timely. Therefore, under Green, the City's equal protection challenge to the holdover jury venire could not be entertained by the district court and cannot be entertained on appeal. Of course, we do not mean to imply that the challenge was in any way meritorious.