Court Opinion

ID: 9488821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:56:22.267208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:07.188710
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached by the court and concur specifically in Parts I, IIB, IIC, IID and III of the court’s opinion. I disagree with the contention that our opinion in United States v. Garcia, 991 F.2d 489 (8th Cir.1993) violates the holding in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979) or the Constitution. The purported underinclusion of the “distinctive group” in venires gathered under the Iowa jury selection plan results not from systematic exclusion of anyone but from an apparent underparticipation in voter registration and other election processes by the targeted classification.
Judge Heaney extols the virtue of Minnesota’s program of supplementing the first stage venire assembly with names from drivers license lists and, possibly, “state identification card[s],” whatever this identification card list may amount to. While there is no evidence in the record one way or another, *779the reasons underlying voter apathy may also lead to disproportionate automobile registrations and, thus, fewer drivers license applications. In any event, the Motor Voter program in effect in Iowa very likely makes use of a drivers license list a redundant and unnecessary effort. See Iowa Code Ann. § 48A.18 (West Supp.1995).
Judge Heaney does not place the source of the state identification cards he refers to. Unless the cards identify a reasonably universal group of citizens, the existence of which does not readily spring to mind, the suggestion would seem to run contrary to the idea of equal opportunity for jury service contemplated by Duren and the Constitution.
ORDER
Feb. 16, 1996
The suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. Judge McMiUian and Judge Morris S. Arnold would grant the suggestion.
The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.