Court Opinion

ID: 9719436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:52:38.686705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.286705
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
Because the trial court failed to make any findings as to the reliability of evidence submitted by Floyd Wayne Williams that African-Americans were underrepresented in the Clayton County traverse jury pool by 17.49 percent, I believe that the trial court’s order rejecting Williams’ challenge to the jury composition should be vacated and this case should be remanded for further proceedings. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.
The record shows that, in support of his Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and OCGA § 15-12-40 claims, Williams provided expert testimony based on 2007 Census Bureau population *739estimates for Clayton County derived from the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). Williams’ expert testified that, under the 2007 ACS, the absolute disparity between the citizen population and the traverse jury list for African-Americans was 17.49 percent. The trial court’s order made no reference to the ACS population statistics or made any findings of fact as to its reliability.
Despite these deficiencies, the majority opinion affirms the trial court by simply relying on the fact that “the Decennial Census as a benchmark has been adopted by this Court for the very purpose of promoting adequate representation of cognizable groups. ..Using the Decennial Census as an automatic and absolute shield against Williams’ claims of underrepresentation, the majority goes on to conclude that, because any demographic changes were beyond the control of the county’s jury commissioners, Williams cannot make a prima facie equal protection claim.2 The majority’s analysis begins and ends with the use of the Decennial Census. However, nowhere in our jurisprudence is the notion that jury commissioners need only blindly rely on the Decennial Census to insulate against attacks on the jury selection process. A procedure that is race neutral, secure from abuse, and free of manipulation can still result in unconstitutional underrepresentation if the procedure loses track of demographic realities beyond what is constitutionally permitted. This is the question that Williams sought to address, that the trial court overlooked, and that the majority now renders irrelevant.
Since the trial court did not address this question, its analysis of Williams’ claim is incomplete. See, e.g., Morrow v. State, 272 Ga. 691, 695 (532 SE2d 78) (2000) (since the trial court found the defendant’s statistics to be unreliable, the Supreme Court accepted this finding of fact on appeal). The disparity alleged by Williams is significant, as this Court has found that “an absolute disparity between the percentage of a group in the population and its percentage in the jury pool of less than 5% is almost always constitutional; an absolute disparity between 5 and 10% is usually constitutional; and an absolute disparity of over 10% is probably unconstitutional.” Id. at 692. See also West v. State, 252 Ga. 156, 157 (1) (313 SE2d 67) (1984) (17% absolute disparity for females in jury pool from females in county population violates OCGA § 15-12-40). If the 17.49 percent disparity is found to be reliable, this statistic could be sufficient for a prima facie case under both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Jones v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 24 (88 SC 4, 19 LE2d 25) (1967) (holding that the mathematical disparity between 19.7% of *740African-Americans in the population and 4.7% of African-Americans on grand jury lists was adequate for a prima facie case under an equal protection analysis); Sanders v. State, 237 Ga. 858 (230 SE2d 291) (1976) (finding that although there was no showing of an opportunity to discriminate, a disparity of 14.5% was not fairly representative of the community as a matter of law). See also Ramirez v. State, 276 Ga. 158, 161 (575 SE2d 462) (2003) (finding that the same statistical thresholds are applicable to equal protection claims and fair cross-section jury claims). Therefore, it is paramount that the trial court thoroughly consider the reliability of the ACS population statistic prior to issuing any ruling.
The majority opinion states that, because this Court has previously stated that the Decennial Census is an objective comprehensive source of data, the trial court cannot err as long as it relies on a decennial census, irrespective of other evidence presented by a defendant. This statement is wrong. See Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U. S. 482, 497 (97 SC 1272, 51 LE2d 498) (1977) (finding that although the facial constitutionality of the jury selection system in Texas was accepted by the Supreme Court, it was still unconstitutional as applied). While the Decennial Census may be the most convenient source of reliable evidence regarding the makeup of a county’s population, it does not follow that it is the only source of reliable information — or that it remains accurate throughout its shelf life. That is why a trial court must fully consider additional evidence presented by a defendant and determine its reliability.
The majority attempts to evade this issue by mischaracterizing the dissent. The majority states that this dissent suggests that “the statewide reliance on the Decennial Census mandated by this Court is somehow discriminatory because in this case that reliance has, as we assume here, resulted in under-representation.” This suggestion however, has no support in anything said herein. It is simply imagined and only draws attention away from the actual finding of this opinion, which is plainly stated in its very first line. The central point is that no reliability determination has been made regarding the ACS data presented by Williams. By not addressing this evidence, the majority creates new law and employs an unconstitutionally truncated analysis in which any evidence other than the Decennial Census is automatically deemed irrelevant. That is not the law because, especially in cases where life and death are on the line, it is fundamentally unfair.3
*741Decided June 28, 2010
Reconsideration denied July 27, 2010.
Christian G. Lamar, Gladys H. Pollard, for appellant.
Tracy Graham-Law son, District Attorney, Erman J. Tanjuatco, Lalaine A. Briones, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Patricia Attaway Burton, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The trial court did not consider the reliability of Williams’ ACS data in this matter. As such, the trial court’s order should be vacated and this case remanded to the trial court for a determination as to the reliability of this evidence and its impact, if any, on Williams’ claims.

 The majority also does not adequately address Williams’ Sixth Amendment claim, which can be proven without demonstrating any intent.

 Likewise, the majority selectively applies Partida to suit its reasoning. Certainly, Partida pointed to the Decennial Census as a rehable source of information, as does this dissent. It does not, however, in any shape, form, or fashion support the truncated procedure espoused by the majority. In fact, it warns against such an inflexible and incomplete analysis.