Court Opinion

ID: 9474182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:50:08.884366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:56.802632
License: Public Domain

*772McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Terrance Karl Alden appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of conspiracy to escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1982), and one count of aiding an escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 752(a) (1982). Appellant was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his other sentences. For reversal appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for inspection of ministerial records regarding the impaneling of grand juries.1 For the reasons discussed below, we remand with instructions.
Appellant, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, and eight others were charged by a federal grand jury with conspiracy to escape, aiding an escape and various firearms violations. Dewey Stephens, appellant’s brother-in-law, was the government’s principal witness. The facts outlined below are based on Stephens’ testimony.
In March 1983 appellant discussed an escape plan with Stephens. Appellant asked Stephens to pick up several people at the airport, house them and show them the location of the penitentiary. Stephens subsequently received telephone calls from a woman in Puerto Rico confirming the arrangements.
On April 16, 1983, Stephens picked up five Puerto Rican men at the airport and transported them to an apartment which he had rented for them in south St. Louis. Subsequently, Stephens received a package postmarked from Puerto Rico which contained an AR-15 rifle and money orders to be used for the men’s expenses. Stephens purchased food, ammunition, army fatigues, watches, compasses, bolt cutters and flashlights for the men. Stephens gave the men three of his own rifles and a piece of pipe. Stephens later moved the men to another apartment.
On April 21, 1983, and on April 23, 1983, Stephens met with appellant at the penitentiary and again discussed the escape plan. On these occasions, Stephens drove some or all of the Puerto Rican men to the area near the penitentiary.
On April 28, 1983, Stephens discussed the escape plan with two other persons, who suggested that he contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). On April 29, 1983, an FBI agent placed an electronic surveillance device on Stephens’ telephone. Later that same day Stephens received two telephone calls from appellant about the escape plan. In addition, penitentiary authorities taped telephone calls from Tomas Santos, an inmate at Marion, to several of the Puerto Rican men, and from Santos to a woman in Puerto Rico.
During a ride in a car furnished by the FBI and equipped with an electronic surveillance device, Stephens and the five men discussed various aspects of the escape plan. When the group arrived at the site to pick up a second car, law enforcement officers arrested Stephens and the five men and seized some ammunition and two maps.
Appellant’s theory of defense is alibi. He sought to prove that he did not make the two telephone calls on April 29, during which the escape plan was discussed, and to establish that Stephens had invented the escape plan in order to protect himself from retaliation for double-crossing prison inmates in drug deals.
On January 11, 1984, appellant filed the first of his pretrial motions requesting access to certain ministerial records regarding grand jury selection. Appellant sought to establish that certain groups had been systematically excluded from service on the grand jury. Appellant requested inspection of roll sheets reflecting the composition of grand juries, attendance records, records setting forth the method by which *773the grand juries were impaneled, and records reflecting the reasons for disqualification of a grand juror based on information derived from the questionnaires sent to the names selected from the master wheel. Before the court ruled on appellant’s original motion, appellant amended his motion to seek records going back to 1970, whereas his original motion covered the years 1980 to 1983.
The district court granted appellant’s original motion but denied the amended motion as overbroad. The district court clerk subsequently provided appellant’s advisory counsel with a letter explaining the procedures used to select the grand jury. The clerk provided no information regarding the grand jurors actually chosen, disqualified or excluded.
On May 31,1984, appellant filed a motion for an order requiring the clerk to comply with the court’s order. On June 8, 1984, the district court ordered appellant to show that the records which he sought to inspect were material and relevant to an argument which he was advancing. Subsequently, appellant filed a written response to the court’s order and argued in support of his motion. On September 7, 1984, the district court denied the motion.
Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his requested discovery of the ministerial records because § 1867(f) of the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1862 et seq. (1982), gives him an unqualified right to inspect jury lists. The government argues that the district court properly determined that the right to inspect jury lists is “essentially unqualified,” not absolutely unqualified, and therefore the district court correctly required appellant to show relevance and materiality.
Section 1867(f) establishes a method by which a defendant may secure records kept by the district court clerk or jury commissioner:
The contents of records or papers used by the jury commission or clerk in connection with the jury selection process shall not be disclosed, except ... as may be necessary in the preparation or presentation of a motion [challenging compliance with selection procedures] under ... this section____ The parties in a case shall be allowed to inspect, reproduce, and copy such records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of such a motion.
The United States Supreme Court has held that § 1867(f) establishes “essentially an unqualified right to inspect jury lists.” Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28, 30, 95 S.Ct. 749, 750, 42 L.Ed.2d 786 (1975). The Court stated:
[Section 1867] grants access in order to aid parties in the “preparation” of motions challenging jury-selection procedures. Indeed, without inspection, a party almost invariably would be unable to determine whether he has a potentially meritorious jury challenge. Thus, an unqualified right to inspection is required not only by the plain text of the statute, but also by the statute’s overall purpose of insuring “grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community.”
Id. (emphasis added). The Court further stated that the only limitation authorized by Congress on the disclosure of this information is that the disclosure be at reasonable times. Id. at 30 n. 4, 95 S.Ct. at 750 n. 4.
“To avail himself [or herself] of [the] right of access to otherwise unpublic jury selection records, a litigant needs only allege that he [or she] is preparing a motion challenging the jury selection procedures.” United States v. Layton, 519 F.Supp. 946, 958 (D.C.Cal.1981). See Test v. United States, 420 U.S. at 30, 95 S.Ct. at 750. A defendant’s motion may not be denied because it is unsupported by a “sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply ‘with the provisions of the Jury Selection Act.’ ” United States v. Marcano-Garcia, 622 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1980) (citation omitted); see United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 926 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 955 (9th Cir.1980); People of the Territory *774of Guam v. Palomo, 511 F.2d 255, 258 (9th Cir.1975) (defendant is entitled to inspect and copy jury records in order to make his motion to stay or dismiss under § 1867(a) and to comply with § 1867(d)’s requirement of a sworn statement of facts). Nor may a motion to inspect be denied because the defendant fails to allege facts which show a “probability of merit in the proposed jury challenge.” United States v. Beaty, 465 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir.1972).
In United States v. Beaty, the district court denied the defendant’s initial motion for inspection of the jury records because the motion was unsupported by sworn statements of facts and was a “fishing expedition with no justification shown and ... apparently made for the purpose of delay.” 465 F.2d at 1379. The defendant’s amended motion for “unlimited inspection of jury records” was also denied because the district court held that the defendant alleged no facts “to show a probability of merit to the proposed jury challenge” and the granting of the motion would “create serious security problems and interfere with the United States Marshal’s responsibility for prisoner security.” Id. at 1379-80. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision denying the motion and held that
the statutes [Section 1867(f)] clearly mean what they stated. [A defendant] or his attorney or investigator, as the court might direct depending upon the circumstances, was entitled to inspect the old records from the master jury wheel ... and the ‘contents of records or papers used by the jury commission or clerk in connection with the jury selection process ... ’
... The [district] court was free to fashion how the inspection should be made and could have provided that [the defendant’s] attorney or his investigator make the inspection if the court ... found that [the defendant, a convicted felon,] presented a security problem. [The defendant] ... had a right to make the inspection before he made a motion to challenge the jury under § 1867(a).
Id. at 1381-82. The court remanded the case to the district court for the purpose of allowing an inspection of the jury records. Id. at 1382.
The Fifth Circuit, relying on Test v. United States, has similarly held that a defendant has an unqualified right to inspect and copy jury records. Government of Canal Zone v. Davis, 592 F.2d 887 (5th Cir.1979) (Davis). Because of the denial of their pretrial motion to inspect and their observation that the jury panel was composed entirely of white men and women, 90% of whom were between 45 and 55 years old, the defendants in Davis waived their right to trial by jury. The defendants expressly indicated that they wished to appeal the denial of their motion to inspect. The Fifth Circuit stated that because “defendants’ right to inspection was unqualified, whether or not the accompanying affidavit established a prima facie case of defective jury selection is of no import ... [because] a defendant is denied access to the very materials containing the information necessary to the filing of a motion to dismiss for defective jury selection____” Id. at 889. The decision of the district court was reversed and the conviction set aside.
In the present case the district court denied appellant’s amended motion for roll sheets and “records reflecting the reasons for disqualification of a grand juror” which appellant sought in order to support his argument that the grand jury did not represent a fair cross-section of the community. Appellant specifically contended that Hispanies and persons between the ages of 18-35 were underrepresented on the grand jury. United States v. Alden, No. 83-128CR4 (E.D.Mo. June 8, 1984), slip op. at 5. The district court, balancing the “defendant's right to discover the facts necessary for a successful grand jury challenge” and the need “to protect the integrity of the grand jury process and also to protect innocent participants, including the grand jurors themselves,” id., held that appellant must show that the information sought was relevant and material to an argument he was advancing. The district court con-*775eluded that the information to be obtained from the jury records was not material or relevant because “any evidence that Hispanics are underrepresented to a statistically significant degree will not prove that Hispanics are underrepresented to a legally significant degree,” “there is some doubt that ‘Hispanic’ persons comprise a cognizable group,” the juror questionnaires would not provide appellant with the desired information because the questionnaires do not include an “Hispanic” category, and appellant’s “argument pertaining to the possible exclusion of 18-35 year olds is immaterial because groups defined by age brackets are not cognizable.” Id.
Although the district court’s analysis is persuasive, the district court is not free to establish additional requirements that defendants must meet in order to gain access to jury selection records. The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the right to inspect these records is “essentially unqualified” and is conditioned only in the manner set forth in the statute. Test v. United States, 420 U.S. at 30, 95 S.Ct. at 750. Even if the defendant’s anticipated challenges to the jury selection process, as articulated at the time of his motion for inspection, are without merit, the defendant may still inspect the jury records. Grounds for challenges to the jury selection process may only become apparent after an examination of the records. Test v. United States, 420 U.S. at 30, 95 S.Ct. at 750; Davis, 592 F.2d at 889.
Although we hold that the district court improperly denied appellant’s motion to inspect and copy jury selection records under § 1867(f), this error does not mandate reversal of appellant’s conviction at this time. United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d at 926; United States v. Marcano-Garcia, 622 F.2d at 18; United States v. Beaty, 465 F.2d at 1382. Rather than reverse, we remand this case to the district court to allow appellant to inspect the relevant documents as permitted by § 1867(f). If a motion challenging the jury is made, the district court shall hear and rule upon the matter. If the district court determines that the grand jury has been improperly selected, the district court shall vacate the judgment.

. Appellant originally raised two other grounds for reversal: the denial of his request for expert voice spectrography services and the denial of his request to hold over for one day an alibi witness. These two points were withdrawn with prejudice on August 7, 1985, at appellant’s request.