Opinion ID: 2600689
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Distinctive Group and Systematic Exclusion

Text: 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.