Opinion ID: 307845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the composition of the grand jury

Text: 66 Both at the trial court and on appeal, Teleprompter and Kahn have mounted a massive attack upon the composition of the grand jury that returned the indictment. The challenge is basically three-pronged: (1) that the Southern District Plan for Random Jury Selection, which mandates the use of voter registration lists as the source of names of those who sit on grand juries, is unconstitutional because it results in under-representation of those between the ages of about 24 and 30 because they tend to register in fewer numbers than older voters; (2) that since the grand jury plan at the time of the indictment excluded all 18-20 year olds, they were denied equal protection; 14 and (3) that the refilling of the grand jury master wheel every four years conflicts with the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1861 et seq. 67 The first two contentions are foreclosed by the thoughtful opinion of Judge Hays in United States v. Guzman, 468 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir., 1972), which carefully considered and rejected identical claims. We see no reason to add to what was said in that decision here. 68 As to the third claim, 15 it finds its basis in the language of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1869(c), which defines voter lists as those from either the most recent State or the most recent Federal general election. Teleprompter and Kahn contend that this provision reflects a requirement by Congress that the master jury wheel be refilled every two years. They point to a passage in H.R.Rep.No.1076, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), 1968 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm.News pp. 1792, 1806-1807, stating that the statute insures that the list used will in any event not be more than 2 years old, as supporting this view. 69 At the time of the indictment here, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1863(b)(4) only required that a jury selection plan provide for periodic emptying and refilling of the master jury wheel at specified times. Surely if Congress intended that the wheel be refilled every two years, it could have found a more direct way of saying so. 16 Indeed, H.R.Rep.No.1076 makes it clear that this provision was adopted to avoid court clerks' objections to previous drafts, which had required refilling of the master wheel at specific times. 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News at p. 1800. 70 We find that the Southern District Plan's requirement of refilling every four years did not conflict with the Act. Accord, United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1971). Such an interpretation is wholly consistent with the language relied upon by appellants in the House Report. The entire sentence in which the two year language appears reads as follows: Accordingly, while the two subsections [Sec. 1869(c) and (d)] permit the plan to choose between State and Federal lists, they also insure that the list used will in any event be not more than 2 years old. This passage, when read in conjunction with the other provisions of the statute, appears to say that when a new list is chosen, that new list itself must be less than 2 years old. Thus, while the time of refilling is left to the districts, the maximum permissible age of the list used is not.