Court Opinion

ID: 9631162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:30:23.438031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:49.491605
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing. After the foregoing opinion was filed, the defendant moved for a rehearing.
Nighswander, Lord, Martin & KillKelly for the motion.
Duncan, J.
In support of his motion the defendant points out that his contention with respect to exclusion of women from the jury panel was not confined to women with young children, but was directed to the exclusion of women generally. The record however failed to show that there was any such exclusion of a deliberate nature. On the contrary, the testimony indicated that there was not, and that there were some conscious efforts to see that women were included in the names submitted to the clerk of court.
*334Similarly the defendant asserts that he did not complain of exclusion of potential jurors in the 18-21 age bracket, but rather of the disproportion of those in the ages between 18 and 34. Obviously those 18-21 were included in the latter group. More significantly, it is also obvious that disproportion in the comparison of a population group in a 15-24 bracket with potential jurors in an 18-24 bracket is inconclusive, particularly since the absence of those aged 18-21 in the latter group is explainable and the number of persons age 15-18 in the population figure is unknown. A comparison of one group of ages 15-24 with another consisting mainly of ages 21-24 is bound to produce disproportion.
Comparison of the statistics in the age brackets 25 to 34 showed disproportion, but absent evidence of the numbers in this age group appearing on the voters lists, the comparison lacked probative force. Comparison of age brackets 35-44 showed a close relationship. Here both population and potential juror figures fell in a 15-16 percent proportion of the total. A shortage of persons ages 18-34 in the voter lists could account for the larger proportion of potential jurors over 44 as compared with population figures for persons over 44.
In the light of the inconclusive effect of the statistical evidence, we reaffirm our conclusion that the record failed to establish systematic or deliberate exclusion of cognizable groups of potential jurors.

Motion denied; former result affirmed.

June 28, 1974