Opinion ID: 1827084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether there was an impartial jury trial from a jury which represented a fair cross section of the community.

Text: Arguello claims denial of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed selected from a fair cross section of the community. According to Arguello, there was an under-representation of Indians and Blacks on the jury panel from which the jury was drawn. The burden is upon Arguello to make a prima facie showing that the cross-sectional requirement has not been met. State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citations omitted). To establish a prima facie challenge[, Arguello] must show that: (1) the group excluded is a distinct group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; (3) this under-representation is due to the systematic exclusion of the group from the jury-selection process. Id. at 83-84 (citations omitted). Arguello represents that, according to 1990 census figures, 7.1% of Pennington County was American Indian and 1.6% was Black. The venire from which his jury was selected contained 119 people, 2 of whom indicated they were Indian. Therefore, according to Arguello, the venire was comprised of 1.68% American Indians and 0% Blacks, resulting in a disparity and under-representation of American Indians of 5.5%. There is no doubt that American Indians are a distinct group in the community but Arguello has failed to establish either the second or third prong of the Lohnes test. We cannot determine, based upon the statistics provided, whether the representation of Indians on the voter registration list[, which is the jury selection list,] is fair and reasonable in comparison with others. We will not presume that the source for jury selection fails to provide a fair cross-section of the community, absent adequate proof. Id. at 84 (citation omitted). While [a]n `inherent' exclusion of Indians from the jury selection process may also be found with statistical evidence showing that the voting list results in an under-representation of Indians, Id. (citation omitted), Arguello has not provided any statistics regarding the percentage of American Indians registered to vote. The composition of the panels, upon which Arguello relies, is irrelevant. A panel is selected at random from the master jury list, see SDCL 16-13-27 [2] , which is a list of names randomly selected by the board of jury selectors from the jury selection lists[.] SDCL 16-13-9.1. [3] Because the master jury list is selected at random from the current precinct registration list (jury selection list), see SDCL 16-13-4.1, it may not accurately indicate the percentage of American Indians registered to vote. Theoretically, a panel could be composed entirely of women, men, blacks, whites, American Indians, or any combination. Arguello has failed to show that the process was not random or that it was due to the systematic exclusion of the group from the jury-selection process. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d at 83-85. [4]