Opinion ID: 2600689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sixth Amendment Fair Cross-Section Claim

Text: This court reviews the factual determinations relevant to a defendant's fair cross-section claim for clear error, and reviews the legal determination of whether a prima facie violation has occurred de novo. See People v. Sepeda, 196 Colo. 13, 17-21, 581 P.2d 723, 726-29 (1978); accord United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 797 (10th Cir.2006). Here, the defendants do not challenge any of the trial courts' findings of fact. Hence, the applicable standard of review of this issue is de novo. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a jury selected from a representative cross-section of the community. Sepeda, 196 Colo. at 18, 581 P.2d at 727 (citing Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 538, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). However, [d]efendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition. Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538, 95 S.Ct. 692; see Sepeda, 196 Colo. at 18, 581 P.2d at 727 (There is no requirement, however, that each petit jury reflect the exact ethnic proportion of the population to which the defendant belongs.). As such, the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section guarantee requires only that the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof. Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538, 95 S.Ct. 692. To establish that the composition of a jury pool constitutes a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section guarantee, the defendant must prove: (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. [4] Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); People v. Rubanowitz, 688 P.2d 231, 241 (Colo.1984) (citing Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664); see Sepeda, 196 Colo. at 19, 581 P.2d at 727-28. If the defendant satisfies the three prongs of the Duren test, then the burden shifts to the state to justify this infringement by showing attainment of a fair cross-section to be incompatible with a significant state interest. Duren, 439 U.S. at 368, 99 S.Ct. 664. [5]
There is no dispute that the first prong of the Duren test is satisfied here. Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664. The People concede that African-Americans and Hispanics are `distinctive groups' for the purposes of a fair cross-section analysis. United States v. Weaver, 267 F.3d 231, 240 (3d Cir.2001); see Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 495, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977) (holding that Mexican-Americans are a clearly identifiable class in the context of an equal protection challenge); Fields v. People, 732 P.2d 1145, 1153 (Colo.1987) (holding that Spanish-surnamed persons clearly constitute a cognizable group of people for the purpose of both Sixth Amendment and equal protection claims against the use of peremptory challenges). The third prong of the Duren test requires a court to determine whether the underrepresentation of the group was caused by systematic exclusion. 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664. As explained by the Duren court, systematic exclusion is inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized and occurred not just occasionally but in every weekly venire for a period [of time]. Id. at 366, 99 S.Ct. 664. At his post-trial hearing, Washington presented evidence that the population of African-Americans and Hispanics in Arapahoe County is concentrated in the Aurora part of the county. Bardwell testified that the practice of giving double credit to prospective jurors for service in Aurora municipal court was statistically significant, meaning that it is statistically unlikely that the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics on Arapahoe County's jury panels occurred by chance. As Bardwell testified, giving double credit to prospective jurors for service in Aurora municipal court inflated the service rank of these prospective jurors in Arapahoe County's jury wheel, making it less likely that they would be selected for jury service in Arapahoe County district and county courts. These facts show a defect in Arapahoe County's jury-selection process that occurred over a period of time and that resulted in statistically significant underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics on Arapahoe County's jury panels. Thus, the practice of giving double credit to prospective jurors for service in Aurora municipal court appears to meet the Duren court's definition of systematic exclusion. However, as explained below, the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics on Arapahoe County's jury panels as measured by statistical significance was minimal when compared with the other statistical evidence presented by Washington. Thus, the underrepresentation was not unfair or unreasonable and did not violate Washington's or Sayles's constitutional right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community.
The second prong of the Duren test requires the defendant to prove that the underrepresentation of the distinctive group resulted in jury panels that failed to reasonably represent the community. [6] Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664. This raises two questions: (1) how should the underrepresentation be measured; and (2) at what level does a jury panel fail to reasonably represent the community? See Washington, 179 P.3d at 159-64; Peter A. Detre, Note, A Proposal for Measuring Underrepresentation in the Composition of the Jury Wheel, 103 Yale L.J.1913, 1917 (1994). Measuring underrepresentation in a challenge to the composition of a jury is, at least in part, a mathematical exercise, and must be supported by statistical evidence. [7] Weaver, 267 F.3d at 240 (citing Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. 664). Courts throughout the country have variously applied four statistical measures to determine whether the defendant has satisfied the second prong of the Duren test: (1) absolute disparity, (2) comparative disparity, (3) absolute impact, and (4) statistical significance. Detre, supra, at 1917. First, absolute disparity measures the difference between the group's percentage in the community's population and the group's percentage on the community's jury panels. Orange, 447 F.3d at 798; Detre, supra, at 1917. Hence, absolute disparity is determined by subtracting the group's percentage in the community's population from the group's percentage on its jury panels. Id. For example, if the group comprises 10% of the community's population and 5% of its jury panels, then the absolute disparity is 5% (10% minus 5%). Second, comparative disparity is determined by dividing the absolute disparity by the group's percentage in the community's population, and then multiplying that number by 100 to create a figure expressed as a percentage. Orange, 447 F.3d at 798; Detre, supra, at 1917-18. This figure measures the percentage decrease in the probability that someone in the underrepresented group will be selected for jury service. Detre, supra, at 1918; see Orange, 447 F.3d at 798. For example, if the group comprises 10% of the community's population and 5% of its jury panels, then the absolute disparity is 5% (10% minus 5%) and the comparative disparity is 50% (5% divided by 10% multiplied by 100). This means that there is a 50% decrease in the probability that a member of the group will be selected for jury service. Third, absolute impact, also known as substantial impact, measures the decrease in the number of group members on an average jury panel. Detre, supra, at 1917. Absolute impact is determined by multiplying the absolute disparity by the number of prospective jurors on the jury panel in question. Id.; see Duren, 439 U.S. at 366, 99 S.Ct. 664 (weighing statistical evidence as measured by absolute impact and absolute disparity). For example, if the absolute disparity is 5% and the number of prospective jurors on the jury panel in question is 100, then the absolute impact is five (5% multiplied by 100). This means that there will be five fewer members of the group on the average jury panel. Fourth, statistical significance, also known as statistical decision theory, measures the likelihood that the underrepresentation of the group occurred by chance. Detre, supra, at 1918. Statistical significance depends upon the size of the jury wheel and is determined using a binomial distribution, which describes the number of times that a particular event occurs or does not occur. Id.; see Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 496 n. 17, 97 S.Ct. 1272 (weighing statistical evidence as measured by statistical significance and absolute disparity). As a general rule for large samples, if the difference between the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations, then the hypothesis that the jury drawing was random would be suspect to a social scientist. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 496 n. 17, 97 S.Ct. 1272. Only once has this court examined whether the underrepresentation of a distinctive group resulted in jury panels that failed to reasonably represent the community. See Sepeda, 196 Colo. at 17-21, 581 P.2d at 726-29 (failing to explain whether its analysis was based on the defendant's Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge or his Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenge). In Sepeda, this court looked to absolute disparity and comparative disparity to determine whether the number of Spanish-surnamed persons on Weld County's jury panel was reasonably representative of the community. Id. at 20, 581 P.2d at 728. In that case, Spanish-surnamed persons comprised 15.4% of Weld County's population and 10.4% of the county's jury panels, resulting in a difference [in absolute disparity] of 5% (15.4% minus 10.4%) or a comparative disparity of 31% (5% divided by 15.4%). [8] Id. Given an absolute disparity of 5% and a comparative disparity of 31%, the court determined that [w]hile the selection process may not be perfect, we cannot say that the jury pool is not reasonably representative of the community. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the jury-selection process for Weld County resulted in a jury pool that was reasonably representative of the community. Id. Like this court in Sepeda, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently relied upon absolute disparity and comparative disparity in this context. See, e.g., Orange, 447 F.3d at 798 ([W]e have consistently relied upon two measurements: absolute and comparative disparity.); United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Shinault, 147 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. Gault, 141 F.3d 1399, 1402 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. Yazzie, 660 F.2d 422, 426 (10th Cir.1981); United States v. Test, 550 F.2d 577, 586-90 (10th Cir.1976). Moreover, the Orange court held that when a court is presented with evidence of comparative and absolute disparities, and those disparities fall within our accepted range, a court need not look further into other statistical methods. 447 F.3d at 799. Critics argue that absolute disparity and comparative disparity distort the underrepresentation of a group because neither absolute disparity nor comparative disparity takes into account the size of the group in question. Id.; Detre, supra, at 1921. As one commentator illustrates, if one group comprises 50% of the community's population and 45% of its jury panels, then the absolute disparity is 5% (50% minus 45%). Detre, supra, at 1921. If another group comprises 5% of the community's population and 0% of its jury panels, then the absolute disparity is likewise 5% (5% minus 0%). Id. In this way, absolute disparity understates the underrepresentation of the latter group. Id.; see Orange, 447 F.3d at 799. When a group is small in relation to a large community, comparative disparity has the opposite effect of overstating the underrepresentation. Detre, supra, at 1921; see Shinault, 147 F.3d at 1273 (assessing the comparative disparity of groups that comprised 1.27%, 2.92%, and 5.11% of the community's population). Although absolute disparity and comparative disparity are the statistical measures most often used by courts to analyze a challenge to the composition of a jury, the United States Supreme Court has never expressly prohibited the use of other statistical measures. In fact, support can be found for the use of absolute impact in Duren, 439 U.S. at 366, 99 S.Ct. 664, and for the use of statistical significance in Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 496 n. 17, 97 S.Ct. 1272, in which the Supreme Court used these measures along with absolute disparity. Few courts have used absolute impact or statistical significance to the exclusion of absolute disparity or comparative disparity when measuring underrepresentation. However, in State v. Gibbs, 254 Conn. 578, 758 A.2d 327, 337 (2000), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's exclusive use of absolute impact in its analysis of the second prong of the Duren test. The court reasoned that absolute impact was the proper statistical measure to use in that particular case because the distinctive group comprised a small percentage of the community's population: Both the absolute disparity and comparative disparity models, although more widely used than the substantial [absolute] impact test, are considered inaccurate when the distinctive group at issue represents a very small portion of the community; . . . and the statistical decision theory's focus on randomness is, by its very nature, inapplicable to a concededly nonrandom process. In contrast, the substantial [absolute] impact test measures underrepresentation in terms of its impact on juries, not simply percentages in the abstract. This analysis allows the courts to reject challenges when the challenged practices did not significantly alter the composition of the typical grand or petit jury. Id. (internal citation, quotation, and emphasis omitted). In Gibbs, the percentage of the group in question, Hispanics, comprised approximately 6.7% of the community's population and 4.21% of its jury panels. Id. The number of prospective jurors on the jury panel was 100 and the absolute impact was 2.36, meaning that approximately three (2.36) Hispanics would have to be added to every jury array of 100 persons in order to eliminate any underrepresentation. Id. Ultimately, the Gibbs court concluded that the defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of the Duren test. Id. No court has used statistical significance alone to evaluate a fair cross-section challenge, but some courts have interpreted Castaneda to require the use of statistical significance in the context of an equal protection challenge. See, e.g., Alston, 791 F.2d at 257 (The Statistical Decision Theory [statistical significance] is ideally suited for shedding light on this issue [of discriminatory intent] because it reveals the possible role of chance and works well where a small sample is involved, as here.); Moultrie v. Martin, 690 F.2d 1078, 1082 (4th Cir.1982) ([I]n all cases involving racial discrimination, the courts of this circuit must apply a standard deviation analysis . . . before drawing conclusions from statistical comparisons.). In this case, Bardwell testified that African-Americans comprised 7.7% of Arapahoe County's population and 7.4% of the county's jury panels, and that Hispanics comprised 12.9% of Arapahoe County's population and 12.6% of the county's jury panels. The trial court took judicial notice of the fact that the jury panel in Washington's case was between 90 and 100. Therefore, for African-Americans, the absolute disparity was 0.3% (7.7%, the group's percentage in Arapahoe County's population, minus 7.4%, the group's percentage on the county's jury panels), and the comparative disparity was 3.9% (0.3%, the absolute disparity, divided by 7.7%, the group's percentage in the population of Arapahoe County, multiplied by 100, to create a percentage figure). The absolute impact was between 0.27 and 0.3 (0.3%, the absolute disparity, multiplied by 90 and 100, the size of the jury panel), meaning that the underrepresentation resulted in a decrease of less than one African-American in every three 90- to 100-person jury panels in Arapahoe County. Bardwell determined that the likelihood that the underrepresentation of African-Americans on Arapahoe County's jury panels occurred by chance was 0.008%, or eight out of every 100,000 times. For Hispanics, the absolute disparity was 0.3% (12.9%, the group's percentage Arapahoe County's population, minus 12.6%, the group's percentage on the county's jury panels), and the comparative disparity was 2.3% (0.3%, the absolute disparity, divided by 12.9%, the group's percentage in the population of Arapahoe County, multiplied by 100, to create a percentage figure). The absolute impact was between 0.27 and 0.3 (0.3%, the absolute disparity, multiplied by 90 and 100, the size of the jury panel), meaning that the underrepresentation resulted in a decrease of less than one Hispanic in every three 90- to 100-person jury panels in Arapahoe County. Bardwell determined that the likelihood that the underrepresentation of Hispanics on Arapahoe County's jury panels occurred by chance was 0.120%, or 120 out of every 100,000 times. In Sepeda, this court upheld a jury-selection process that resulted in an absolute disparity of 5% and a comparative disparity of 31% in the percentage of Hispanics in Weld County's population and on its jury panels. 196 Colo. at 20, 581 P.2d at 728. In Duren, the Supreme Court found that a jury-selection process resulted in unfair and unreasonable representation where the absolute disparity was 39% and the absolute impact was less than one of every six prospective jurors. 439 U.S. at 365-66, 99 S.Ct. 664. In Castaneda, the Supreme Court found that the absolute disparity was 40% and the statistical significance was approximately 29 standard deviations . . . reveal[ing] that the likelihood that such a substantial departure from the expected value would occur by chance is less than one in 10,140. 430 U.S. at 495-96, 496 n. 17, 97 S.Ct. 1272. These disparities, including the degree of statistical significance in Castaneda, are much greater than the underrepresentation as measured by the statistical evidence presented by Washington. In addition, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that greater underrepresentation than that shown here does not rise to the level of being unfair and unreasonable, even when the group's percentage of the community's population was similar to the groups' percentages here. Orange, 447 F.3d at 796 n. 4 (where four groups comprised 1.47%, 3.02%, 4.21%, and 7.40% of the community's population, the absolute disparities were 0.80%, 1.66%, 1.55%, and 2.62%, respectively, and the comparative disparities were 54.41%, 54.97%, 36.82%, and 35.41%, respectively); Chanthadara, 230 F.3d at 1256-57 (where a group comprised 7.90% of the community's population, the absolute disparity was 3.23% and the comparative disparity was 40.89%); Shinault, 147 F.3d at 1273 (where three groups comprised 1.27%, 2.92%, and 5.11% of the community's population; the absolute disparities were 0.76%, 1.42%, and 2.56%, respectively, and the comparative disparities were 59.84%, 50.09%, and 48.63% respectively); Gault, 141 F.3d at 1402-03 (where the underrepresentation occurred over two years and involved three groups, the absolute disparities ranged between 0.28% to 7.00%, and the comparative disparities ranged between 15.14% and 35.68%); Yazzie, 660 F.2d at 427 n. 4 (where a group's disparity was measured in three different forums, the absolute disparity ranged between 2.94% and 4.29%, and the comparative disparity ranged between 45.2% and 46.3%). We hold that no specific statistical measure should be excluded in a court's analysis of a constitutional fair cross-section claim, and that a court should evaluate all the statistical evidence presented to determine whether the underrepresentation is unfair and unreasonable in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. Here, Bardwell testified that the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics on jury panels in Arapahoe County at the time of the defendants' trials was statistically significant. For this reason, we disapprove of the practice of giving double credit to prospective jurors for service in Aurora municipal court, and we direct that this practice be stopped immediately. However, our review of all the statistical evidence presented by Washington leads us to conclude that the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics on jury panels in Arapahoe County was not unfair or unreasonable. As measured by absolute impact, the practice of giving double credit to prospective jurors for service in Aurora municipal court resulted in a decrease of less than one African-American and one Hispanic in every three 90-to 100-person jury panels in Arapahoe County. As measured by absolute disparity and comparative disparity, the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics here was slight when compared with other cases in which the underrepresentation violated a defendant's right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. Thus, the underrepresentation in this case, although statistically significant, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section guarantee. [9]