Opinion ID: 342459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Preserve Statutory Objection

Text: 29 Unjust as it may seem at first blush, however, appellant cannot avail himself of the district court's substantial failure to comply with the Act's jury selection procedures. His counsel objected to the presence of volunteers on the jury panel only by oral objection at the outset of the voir dire. Counsel stated that the use of volunteers violated the random selection rule, and he asked that all volunteers be struck. A conclusion that this form of objection was adequate to preserve the claim of departure from the Act would run strongly in the face of contrary language in the Act itself, its legislative history, and judicial interpretation to date. 30 28 U.S.C. § 1867 sets out the method for challenging jury selection on the basis of substantial noncompliance with the Act. Section 1867(a) requires a defendant prior to the voir dire to move to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings. Section 1867(d) requires that the motion be accompanied by a sworn statement of facts that, if true, demonstrate a substantial failure to comply with the Act. Section 1867(e) states that the procedures prescribed in § 1867 are the exclusive means by which a defendant may challenge a jury on the basis of noncompliance with the Act. 31 Significantly, counsel for appellant omitted to accompany his motion with the required sworn statement. The legislative history makes clear that this requirement was considered independently important as a means for discouraging spurious challenges filed for dilatory purposes. The reports of both Houses contain this comment regarding the sworn statement: 32 This threshold requirement to a successful challenge will make it possible for the judge to review a challenge motion and swiftly dispose of it if it fails, on its face, to state a case for which a remedy could be granted. 33 H.R.Rep. No. 1076, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 1792, 1806; S.Rep. 891, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 33 (1967). 34 The courts have strictly enforced both the timeliness and sworn statement requirements of § 1867. This court has refused to consider a statutory challenge raised after the empanelling of a jury. See United States v. DeAlba-Conrado, 481 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1973). 35 We have not had occasion to address specifically the sworn statement requirement. The Second Circuit has found compliance with this requirement also to be a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to a jury based on the Act. See United States v. Jones, 480 F.2d 1135 (2nd Cir. 1973). Other courts have in dicta stated that such compliance will be required. See United States v. Jasper, 523 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1075, 96 S.Ct. 859, 47 L.Ed.2d 85 (1976); United States v. James, 453 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mitchell, 397 F.Supp. 166 (D.D.C.1974). 36 Enforcement of the sworn statement requirement arguably should be waived where the facts underlying the challenge, such as the presence of volunteer jurors, are undisputed and known to the court. We conclude, however, that Congress left no room for ad hoc review of the usefulness of compliance with this requirement. Absent some indication from particular circumstances that counsel could not reasonably have been expected to comply with the procedural prerequisites to a statutory challenge to the jury, the claim under the Act will be forfeited by noncompliance. This record discloses no such circumstances excusing the omission of the sworn statement. 37 Barring assertion of the statutory claim here visits no great injustice on this appellant. In the Act, Congress set out a uniform, relatively strict scheme for jury selection. Congress included a new remedy for substantial violations of the Act, regardless of whether the litigant challenging the jury had been prejudiced by the jury selection. As a price for this remedy, Congress was entitled to exact strict compliance with formal procedural rules. 38 Enforcement of that price may seem harsh in the individual case. Nevertheless, as this court explained in DeAlba-Conrado, supra, forfeiture of the statutory claim in no way affects the sanctity of a defendant's due process right to be tried by a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. While a properly preserved claim of substantial noncompliance with the Act would of course require reversal if meritorious, the fundamental justice of a conviction remains intact if the jury selection procedure did not transgress that due process guarantee.