Court Opinion

ID: 9473974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:44:53.768571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:50.605762
License: Public Domain

BOWNES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The list that was used to draw Barber’s jury pool contained three items of information: names, addresses, and the dates of birth of potential jury candidates. The jury venires that were selected during a twenty-five-month period from October 1978 through October 1980 contained less than half of the young adults an age-blind selection process should have produced.1 The probability of this discrepancy occurring by chance is less than one in one hundred quadrillion.2 Nonetheless, the court finds that Barber’s jury pool and venire contained a fair cross section of the *1001community as required by the sixth amendment. In so finding, the majority holds that young adults 18-35 do not comprise a distinctive group within the community that must be included in the jury selection process although it also finds that such persons cannot be overtly excluded from it.
I believe that young adults between 18 and 35 do comprise a substantial and identifiable group that cannot be systematically excluded from jury pools. Where, as here, the jury pool selectors possessed specific age information on potential jury pool members they had the obvious opportunity to discriminate against jurors on the basis of age. I think it clear that the disparity between the number of young adults under 35 in the jury venires and the number of such young adults in the population is a result of systematic exclusion.
I
Young adults between 18 and 35 constitute both a large (37.82% of the population) and easily identifiable group (all that is needed are birthdates) in Norfolk County. It seems indisputable that an individual’s response to nearly every facet of his or her life, including life goals and ambitions, health, personal relationships, family and death, evolve and change over the course of one’s adult life. And, despite the fact that societal distinctions based on age are ubiquitous, affecting everything from insurance rates to availability for military service, eligibility for political office and media advertising campaigns, the majority believes this is inadequate justification for finding that adults 18-35 comprise a discernible group for jury selection purposes.
The majority decides that young adults between 18 and 35 are not a cognizable group for sixth amendment purposes because there are differences in attitudes, experiences, and ideas within the group and because petitioner has not shown that all young adults possess a community of interest different from persons 35 and older that would be inadequately represented if persons under 35 are excluded from the jury selection process. If this is a sound premise, it is unclear to me why the majority believes that young adults cannot be “actively” or “systematically” excluded. {See supra p. 999.) The holding that young adults are not a cognizable group and, therefore, need not be included in the jury pool to make it a reasonable cross section of the community, but cannot be overtly excluded is inherently contradictory. Indeed, if the conjunction of age information as to each potential venireman and the dramatic disproportionality of representation of young adults is not enough to prove systematic discrimination, at least as a prima facie matter, the majority’s concession would seem to be reserved for the unlikely case in which there is smoking-gun evidence in the form of explicitly discriminatory statements.
I do not agree with the majority’s attempt to distinguish this case from others in which the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of cognizable groups. Diversity within a group and overlap of attitudes and experiences of group and nongroup members are as characteristic of groups the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized to be cognizable as petitioner’s young adult group. In Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 67 S.Ct. 261, 91 L.Ed. 181 (1946), the Court found that women constituted a cognizable group despite the government’s protestations that women do not act as a class or have common attitudes, experiences and ideas. The Court stated:
[I]t is not enough to say that women when sitting as jurors neither act nor tend to act as a class. Men likewise do not act as a class. But, if the shoe were on the other foot, who would claim that a jury was truly representative of the community if all men were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel? The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence one on the other is among the imponderables. To insulate the courtroom from either may not in a given case make an iota of difference. *1002Yet a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded.
Id. at 193-94, 67 S.Ct. at 264 (footnote omitted). In Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 503-04, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2168-69, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972), the Court reaffirmed this view.
When any large and identifiable segment of the community is excluded from jury service, the effect is to remove from the jury room qualities of human nature and varieties of human experience, the range of which is unknown and perhaps unknowable. It is not necessary to assume that the excluded group will consistently vote as a class in order to conclude, as we do, that its exclusion deprives the jury of a perspective on human events that may have unsuspected importance in any case that may be presented. [Footnote omitted.]
In addition to women and blacks, the Supreme Court has recognized the cognizability of Mexican-Americans (Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954)), daily wage earners (Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 66 S.Ct. 984, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946)), and persons holding personal or religious scruples against capital punishment who are able to act impartially (Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968); accord Wainwright v. Witt, — U.S. -, -, 105 S.Ct. 844, 851, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)). Other circuit courts have recognized the cognizability of Indians (United States v. Brady, 579 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1074, 99 S.Ct. 849, 59 L.Ed.2d 41 (1979)), and Jewish persons (United States v. Siragusa, 450 F.2d 596 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 974, 92 S.Ct. 1195, 31 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972)). All of these groups contain persons with a broad and diverse range of attitudes and experiences and many members of these cognizable groups undoubtedly share the attitudes and experiences of persons outside the group. To require a litigant to show that the members of a group are influenced by the same factors or cast their vote as a lot would make a mockery of the democratic values the jury system is designed to protect. It would require a litigant to stereotype and overgeneralize the attributes and experiences of a group in order for it to be recognized as one against which discrimination is unconstitutional. See Thiel v. Southern Pacific, 328 U.S. at 223-24, 66 S.Ct. at 987.
The validity of a petitioner’s challenge depends, of course, on his showing that a “substantial” group has been excluded. It may well be that narrow age spans would not constitute a large enough percentage of the population to be cognizable. Here, however, where petitioner has used an age span encompassing virtually all those who could be classified as young adults and a group comprising 38% of the population, it is clear that the group is substantial enough to require inclusion in the process. The majority finds that the contours of the group of persons identified as young adults between 18 and 35, is too amorphous to have constitutional significance. But amorphousness is not confined to age groups. In what generation does a Mexican-American or Puerto Rican become simply a Texas or New Yorker and cease to be part of a cognizable group? Very few groups can be descriptively circumscribed by legal definitions. In Thiel the Supreme Court recognized what this court does not, that broad groups, even if not susceptible to precise definition, contribute to the fabric of our society and the vitality of our justice system and cannot be sifted out of the jury selection process. See 328 U.S. at 220, 66 S.Ct. at 985.
The real basis of the court’s opinion seems to be the majority’s belief that adults between the ages of 18 and 35 do not constitute a “special group” worthy of heightened scrutiny. See supra at 986. In their bright-line fever to confine cogniza-bility the majority compresses the sixth amendment cross-section requirement into the equal protection clause. This they do in face of the Supreme Court’s long-standing and consistent position that the two are not congruent. See, e.g., Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 499-500, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2166-67, 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972) (“even in 1880 the Court recognized that other constitu*1003tional values [besides the equal protection clause] were implicated”); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), and Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 67 S.Ct. 261, 91 L.Ed. 181 (finding women to be a cognizable class thirty and twenty-five years before the equal protection clause was found to require heightened scrutiny for women); Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. at 220, 66 S.Ct. at 985 (identifying cognizable groups as including economic, social, religious, racial, political and geographic groups within a community). The Court has explicitly stated that enforcement of the sixth amendment cross-section requirement is not confined to enforcement of the equal protection clause.
The. principle of the representative jury was first articúlated by this Court as a requirement of equal protection, in cases vindicating the right of a Negro defendant to challenge the systematic exclusion of Negroes from his grand and petit juries. E.g., Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, 130 [61 S.Ct. 164, 165, 85 L.Ed. 84] (1940). Subsequently, in the exercise of its supervisory power over federal courts, this Court extended the principle, to permit any defendant to challenge the arbitrary exclusion from jury service of his own or any other class. E.g., Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 83-87 [62 S.Ct. 457, 470-72, 86 L.Ed. 680] (1942); Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220 [66 S.Ct. 984, 985, 90 L.Ed. 1181] (1946); Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 [67 S.Ct. 261, 91 L.Ed. 181] (1946). Finally it emerged as an aspect of the constitutional right to jury trial in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100 [90 S.Ct. 1893, 1905, 26 L.Ed.2d 446] (1970).
Peters v. Kiff 407 U.S. at 500 n. 9, 92 S.Ct. at 2167 n. 9. In Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 330, 90 S.Ct. 518, 523, 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1970), the Supreme Court delineated the scope of the cross-section requirement:
[T]he very idea of a jury [is] “a body truly representative of the community,” composed of “the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.” [Footnotes omitted.]
In Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, a case involving discretion in the selection of women jurors prior to the application of heightened scrutiny for women under the equal protection clause, the Court spelled out the duties of jury selectors in meeting the cross-section requirement.
Th[e] duty of selection ... must always accord with the fact that the proper functioning of the jury system, and, indeed, our democracy itself, requires that the jury be a “body truly representative of the community,” and not the organ of any special group or class. If that requirement is observed [the jury commissioners] ... may exercise some discretion to the end that competent jurors may be called. But they must not allow the desire for competent jurors to lead them into selections which do not comport with the concept of the jury as a cross-section of the community.
315 U.S. at 85-86, 62 S.Ct. at 471-72.
While the Constitution does not require a defendant’s jury to be a true mirror of the community, the Constitution does require that the venire reasonably reflect the composition of the community. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. at 538, 95 S.Ct. at 701; Carter v. Jury Commission, 396 U.S. at 339, 90 S.Ct. at 528; Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 66 S.Ct. 984. The position taken by the court that the cross-section requirement of the sixth amendment requires only that “special groups” such as women and blacks not be systematically excluded is contrary to the principles embodied in the sixth amendment and articulated in Supreme Court precedent.
II
To avoid the logical result of their non-cognizability finding — that young adults can be completely excluded from all jury *1004pools and venires — the majority also breaks rank with established Supreme Court precedent on the issue of systematic exclusion. My colleagues state that petitioner’s showing of a substantial disparity coupled with the opportunity for the selectors to discriminate is insufficient to show systematic exclusion, but had petitioner been able to show active discrimination (i.e., if a statute had specifically excluded young people or a jury selector had testified that he had excluded persons under 35) their conclusion would be different. See supra at 1000. Here again, my colleagues focus only on the law of equal protection challenges to the exclusion of sixth amendment principles. Their finding that evidence of intentional discrimination is required is directly counter to the law the Court stated in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 366, 99 S.Ct. 664, 669, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979):
[I]n order to establish a prima facie case, it was necessary for petitioner to show that the underrepresentation of women, generally and on his venire, was due to their systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process. Petitioner’s proof met this requirement. His undisputed demonstration that a large discrepancy occurred not just occasionally, but in every weekly venire for a period of nearly a year manifestly indicates that the cause of the underrepresentation was systematic — that is, inherent in the par- ' ticular jury-selection process utilized.
If that statement can be considered equivocal, the Court’s note two pages later cannot: “In contrast [to the equal protection cases], in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, systematic disproportion itself demonstrates an infringement of the defendant’s interest in a jury chosen from a fair cross section. The only remaining question is whether there is adequate justification for this infringement.” Id. at 368 n. 26, 99 S.Ct. at 670 n. 26. See also Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 25, 88 S.Ct. 4, 5, 19 L.Ed.2d 25 (1967) (per curiam); Coleman v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 22, 23, 88 S.Ct. 2, 3, 19 L.Ed.2d 22 (1967) (per curiam); Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 551, 87 S.Ct. 643, 647, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1967); Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954).
In Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 360, 90 S.Ct. 532, 540, 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970), the Court held that where “appellants demonstrated a substantial disparity ... [and where] [t]hey further demonstrated that the disparity originated, at least in part, at the one point in the selection process where the jury commissioners invoked their subjective judgment rather than objective criteria[,] [t]he appellants thereby made out a prima facie case of jury discrimination----” In this case, petitioner presented evidence that the manner of selection of jury venires in Norfolk County at the time of his trial was the key-man system. Mass. Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 234, § 4 (1970). Under the key-man system, the board of selectmen prepares a list of inhabitants of good moral character, sound judgment, not subject to exception, not exempt, and whom the selectman think qualified to serve as jurors. The list contains only the names of persons determined to be qualified. The determination is made in one of three ways: upon the knowledge of one of the board; after personal appearance before the board; or after examination of a questionnaire answered under oath. In oral argument the petitioner stated, and the state did not dispute, that the list from which petitioner’s jury venire was drawn contained the names, addresses, and birthdates of potential jury venire candidates. Where more than one person lived at the same address, the household members were listed chronologically from oldest to youngest.3 While there is no evidence that the *1005exclusion of young people on the jury ve-nire was motivated by hostility or a belief that young adults were less capable of serving as jurors rather than speculation that young adults might be less available for service, the failure of the key-man system to produce a cross-sectional age representation in jury venires cannot be excused by blameless motives of the jury selectors. Regardless of the intention of the jury administrators, the results produced determine the validity of the process employed. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. at 482, 74 S.Ct. at 672; Thiel v. Southern Pacific, 328 U.S. at 224-25, 66 S.Ct. at 987-88. No jury commission should be exonerated simply because it did not act in bad faith. Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 632, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972). Whenever consistent and significant disparities are found between the proportion of a substantial and identifiable group in the community and the proportion of that group in the composition of jury venires and petitioner demonstrates that there is an opportunity for discrimination in the selection process, I believe the burden of proving that the guarantees of the sixth amendment cross-section requirement have been met rests on the responsible officials.4
Ill
Although I do not think that the analysis offered by my colleagues properly recognizes the principles of the sixth amendment articulated by the Supreme Court, stating just what the test for cognizability should be is not an easy task. The Supreme Court has wrestled with the problem of distinctiveness in a number of different contexts and has chosen to take judicial notice of the distinctiveness of groups without much explanation of the criteria used. Rather, the Court has recognized that any group is composed of dynamic individuals with individualized life experiences, perspectives, and beliefs. It has recognized that broad categorizations are not possible and, in fact, not particularly desirable in the pursuit of eliminating discrimination. To that end, when identifying distinctive groups, the Court has never identified what it is that distinguishes a group from other groups; it has identified no particular attitudes, beliefs, or experiences that would necessarily distinguish Mexican-Americans from non-Mexican-Americans, blacks from non-blacks, and women from men. The Court explains that distinctiveness is “a flavor,” Ballard, 329 U.S. at 194, 67 S.Ct. at 264, or “qualities of human nature and varieties of human experience, the range of which is unknown and perhaps unknowable,” Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. at 503, 92 S.Ct. at 2169. Under this approach, I would not attempt, as my colleagues do, to compare the relative “flavor” of one clearly identifiable group versus another. I would hold that a petitioner can challenge the nonrepresentation of any substantial and identifiable group. Once identified, the petitioner must show a substantial disproportion between the community group and the jury group and the potential for a nonrandom selection process. Then, I would hold that the burden shifts to the state to explain the discrepancy. The majority finds this would be untenably burdensome to the state. I think they overstate the administrative burden involved.
I do not believe that the number of groups that could be used to successfully challenge a jury venire would be infinitely large unless the jury system is not producing a reasonable cross section of the com*1006munity. For example, if young persons are underrepresented by 50%, there are three possible causes for it: (1) the pool and venire represent the phenomenal one in millions possibility that is due to pure chance; (2) young adults under thirty-five are being identified and excluded in some fashion;5 or (3) young adults are being selected for the pool and drawn for the potential venire but are not making it into the venire because of exemptions and exclusions. The first possibility is so unlikely that it would not affect the jury selection process in any significant way. The second possible cause, identification and exclusion of a substantial group by the state, appears to me to be inimical to the right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community regardless of what the group is, unless the state demonstrates that the exclusion manifestly and primarily advances a significant state interest.6 See Duran v. Missouri, 439 U.S. at 367-68, 99 S.Ct. at 670-71. If underrepresentation is due to the third possibility — young adults under thirty-five are excused or exempted in greater numbers than other persons — it seems reasonable to require the state to produce evidence of it.
My colleagues have attempted to explain away the substantial disparity in this case between young adults in the venires and young adults in the population by speculating that young adults might be less available to serve as jurors because they are attending college, serving in the Armed Forces or surfing in Hawaii. See supra at 1000. I believe that speculating as to such matters without evidence of any sort is hazardous at best and, at worst, an inappropriate injection of personal beliefs into the judicial process. The “some people are simply less available as jurors” speculation can be applied to any group and would completely undermine the cross-section rule if applied across the board. This very argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court in Thiel (daily wage earners) and Ballard (women). Rather than permitting jury selectors or courts to make assumptions about the ability or availability of groups of people to serve, the Court has held that
[recognition must be given to the fact that those eligible for jury service are to be found in every stratum of society. Jury competence is an individual rather than a group or class matter. That fact lies at the very heart of the jury system. To disregard it is to open the door to class distinctions and discriminations which are abhorrent to the democratic ideals of trial by jury.
Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. at 220, 66 S.Ct. at 985.
The majority has asserted that requiring a state to explain the reasons for a substantial statistical disparity would lead to overwhelming administrative problems. Experience shows that requiring a state to provide the reason that an individual was not part of the jury venire or a group of individuals were underrepresented on the venire does not disrupt the smooth running of a jury selection system. All it requires is that the state grant excusáis and exemptions upon written explanation. The explanations are then filed along with the jury questionnaires that are returned indicating the candidates which are qualified to serve. Both the jury questionnaires and excu-sáis/exemptions are available to defendants and the government. This procedure is currently followed in several Massachusetts counties as well as the federal courts. See Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 234A (West *1007Supp.1984-85) (governing Middlesex, Suffolk, Hampden and Worcester Counties); Federal Jury Selection Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1863-1866 (1982).
Not only does such a procedure serve to illuminate the composition of the jury ve-nire, promoting the public’s perception that it fairly reflects the community, but it should cut down on the number of challenges. Defendants are able to determine for themselves the reasons for excusal from the venire before moving the court for a new jury venire or petitioning the court for money to analyze the composition of jury pools and venires. Under the court’s decision, a petitioner (and ultimately the court in indigent cases) will have to bear the burden of engaging an expert to testify as to whether a group is “special” enough to be deemed a necessary part of a jury venire, an investigator to pursue the reasons for the undocumented underrepre-sentation as well as a statistician to protect his or her sixth amendment rights.
By finding that only a few “special groups” can be assured a place in jury venires and that the “fair cross section” requirement is an impractical “ideal,” the court emphasizes one of the distinctions between the young and old to which I would rather not ascribe: “Your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” JOEL: 2:28.
COFFIN, J., concurs fully in this dissent.

. In the period between January 1, 1978, and October 31, 1980, 37.82% of the general population of Norfolk County consisted of persons aged 18 to 35 and 18.16% of the jury venire consisted of persons 18 to 35. If adults over the age of 70 are excluded from the analysis because they can elect to exempt themselves under Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 234, § 1 (1984), then young adults constitute 41.46% of the eligible jurors and were selected for the venire only 18.68% of the time. The difference between the proportion of young adults in the population and the proportion of young adults on the venires was 19.56%. Excluding adults over 70, the discrepancy was 22.78%.

. Based on statistical evidence presented by petitioner in his motion to dismiss the jury venire. The evidence consisted of a report on jury ve-nires in Norfolk County 1978-1980 compiled by a court-appointed special master in Commonwealth v. Flaherty, Norfolk County Criminal No. 76318.

. The petitioner has suggested that the jury selectors in compiling the list chose the older members of a household of more than one eligible jury candidate. This case seems to be very closely analogous to the facts in Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 480 n. 12, 74 S.Ct. 667, 671 n. 12, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954), wherein the Supreme Court found systematic exclusion where the petitioner showed a significant disparity between Mexican-Americans in the population and in the jury pool and on the grand jury and the Supreme Court hypothesized that people with Spanish-sounding surnames had been passed over by the selectors.

. The burden is particularly appropriate in this case: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had considered an age-group challenge to the composition of jury lists drawn under the key-man system in Massachusetts approximately one year prior to petitioner’s motion to dismiss the unrepresentative venire. Commonwealth v. Bastarache, 382 Mass. 86, 414 N.E.2d 984 (1980). In Bastarache, the Supreme Judicial Court expressed concern with the underrepresentation of young adults and directed the attorney general to prescribe new jury selection procedures for the compilation of jury lists in those cities and towns not using a random selection process. Id. 414 N.E.2d at 995.

. Another related possibility is that adults under thirty-five are part of a larger group or contain a significant small group against which there is direct discrimination.

. See Hamling v. United. States, 418 U.S. 87, 137-38, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2917-18, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) (filling of jury wheel every four years not unconstitutional, although it means some persons will not be qualified as soon as eligible); United States v. Benmuhar, 658 F.2d 14 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1117, 102 S.Ct. 2927, 73 L.Ed.2d 1328 (1982) (government interest in conducting court in national language is significant).