Donald Schanbarger v. Robert MacY Jr., Hudson Falls Paul J. Brown Andrew S. Conley Marjorie Clark Clarisse Mondoux, 77 F.3d 1424 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Donald Schanbarger v. Robert MacY Jr., Hudson Falls Paul J. Brown Andrew S. Conley Marjorie Clark Clarisse Mondoux, 77 F.3d 1424 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal (iowa, 2019-05-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal
Iowa · 2019 · confidence medium
But we specifically rejected this argument in [United States v.] Odeneal[, 517 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2008)].”); United States v. Smith, 247 F. App’x 321 , 323 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) (“We have affirmed the validity of jury selection procedures using voter registration and motor vehicle records as procedures ‘constituted using facially neutral criteria [that] allow no opportunity for subjective or racially motivated judgments.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Ramseur v. Beyer, 983 F.2d 1215, 1233 (3d Cir. 1992))); United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792, 800 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The circu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Footracer (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See also Truesdale v. Moore, 142 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir.1998) (focusing on the lack of structural or systemic impediments to voter registration); Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424, 1424 (2nd Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Ireland, 62 F.3d 227, 231 (8th Cir.1995) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Miller
unknown court · 1997 · confidence medium
Defendants presented no evidence whatever of any intentional discrim ination. “[AJbsent positive evidence that some groups have been hindered in attempting to register to vote, a jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection.” Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424, 1424 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam); see also United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 676-78 (2d Cir.1990) (upholding jury plan using voter registration lists despite underrepresentation of minority groups i…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Miller
unknown court · 1997 · confidence medium
Defendants presented no evidence whatever of any intentional discrimination. "[A]bsent positive evidence that some groups have been hindered in attempting to register to vote, a jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of Equal Protection." Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424, 1424 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam); see also United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 676-78 (2d Cir.1990) (upholding jury plan using voter registration lists despite underrepresentation of minority groups in the mas…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lekunutu Matima v. Andrea E. Celli
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
We affirm, however, because Matima's "motion [was] made after an inordinate delay, no satisfactory explanation [was] offered for the delay, and the amendment would prejudice the defendant." Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Dluhos v. Floating and Abandoned Vessel, Known as New York, 162 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1998). 81 Matima's argument that the all-white jury pool violated his right to a trial by a jury of his peers is meritless because Matima failed to demonstrate that the Northern District's jury selection system results in the unfair under-representat…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abbe Bershatsky v. Wilbur A. Levin, Commissioner of Jurors, Kings County, New York and His Successors in Office
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424, 1424 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam) (upholding use of voter registration lists as source of names for civil jury venire); United States v. Ashley, 54 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir.) (same in criminal case), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 232 , 133 L.Ed.2d 161 (1995); United States v. Lewis, 10 F.3d 1086, 1090 (4th Cir.1993) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Reyes
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam) (an equal protection challenge to composition of a jury pool is not viable absent evidence of hindrance in registering to vote). 6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald Schanbarger
v.
Robert MacY Jr., Hudson Falls Paul J. Brown Andrew S. Conley Marjorie Clark Clarisse Mondoux
1026.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 8, 1996.
77 F.3d 1424
Published

77 F.3d 1424

Donald SCHANBARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert MACY, Jr., Defendant,
Hudson Falls; Paul J. Brown; Andrew S. Conley; Marjorie
Clark; Clarisse Mondoux, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1026, Docket 95-7810.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Submitted March 1, 1996.
Decided March 8, 1996.

Donald Schanbarger, pro se, Salem, New York, for Appellant.

Veronica Carrozza O'Dell, Fitzgerald Morris Baker & Firth, Glens Falls, New York, for Appellees Hudson Falls, Paul J. Brown, and Andrew S. Conley.

Jeff Culkin, Bouck, Holloway, Kiernan & Casey, Albany, New York, for Appellee Marjorie Clark.

Mark E. Cerasano, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, Glens Falls, New York, for Appellee Clarisse Mondoux.

Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Donald Schanbarger claims that his jury trial was invalid because his jury was selected based on a venire drawn from voter registration lists. For the reasons stated in United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 676-78 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 904, 111 S.Ct. 1102, 113 L.Ed.2d 213 (1991), and Bershatsky v. Levin, No. CV-95-4121, slip op. at 4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 1996) (Trager, J.), we hold that, absent positive evidence that some groups have been hindered in attempting to register to vote, a jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of Equal Protection. See also United States v. Ashley, 54 F.3d 311, 314-15 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 232, 133 L.Ed.2d 161 (1995); United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1448 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1205, 108 S.Ct. 2846, 101 L.Ed.2d 883 (1988). No such evidence was offered.

2

We have reviewed appellant's other claims and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm.