Court Opinion

ID: 9489313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:11:48.785566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:27.347776
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge,
concurrence and partial dissent:
If we take judicial notice of 1990 census data showing the number of Hispanies eligible for jury service, which was presented to us two weeks before the oral arguments on this appeal, I would agree with the majority’s opinion holding that Esquivel has failed to establish a Sixth Amendment violation. Es-quivel opposed the request contending that the late presentation did not afford her the opportunity to confer with experts and to place experts’ opinions before the court.
If this case merely affected Esquivel, I would have no hesitancy in joining the majority opinion, but it affects the jury representation of a “distinctive,” “cognizable” group whose numbers are between one-fourth and one-third of the residents of the Southern District of California. In order to preserve the appearance of fairness and to recognize the interest of this sizable group of residents, I believe that the better procedure is to remand the judicial notice request to the district court so that Esquivel has a full opportunity to challenge the figures.
The accuracy of the census data is matter of much debate. As the Supreme Court recently noted, “[djespite consistent efforts to improve the quality of the [census] count, errors persist.” Wisconsin v. City of N.Y., — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 1091, 1094, 134 L.Ed.2d 167 (1996). Since at least 1940, there has been an undercount of the actual American population, and that undercount “affects some racial and minority groups to a greater extent than it does whites.” Id. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 1095.
If it were not for the additional statistics presented in the request to take judicial notice, this would present a very close case of whether there was sufficient statistical representation to place the burden on the government for an explanation. Compare Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 359, 90 S.Ct. 532, 539-40, 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970) (disparity of 23% sufficient to create presumption); Whitus v. *729Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 550, 87 S.Ct. 643, 646-47, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1967) (18%); Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 25, 88 S.Ct. 4, 5-6, 19 L.Ed.2d 25 (1967) (14.7%) with United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 547 (9th Cir.1989) (disparity of 2.8% insufficient to create presumption); United States v. Rodriguez, 776 F.2d 1509, 1511 (11th Cir.1985) (6.7%); United States v. Suttiswad, 696 F.2d 645, 648 (9th Cir.1982) (7.7%). It will be unnecessary for us to determine whether a threshold lower than that relied upon in previous cases is sufficient, if the request for judicial notice is granted. I, however, believe that the preferable course is a remand.