fair cross-section requirement in Alabama

2026In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking to establish a prima facie case of a violation of the fair cross-section requirement must demonstrate the following three elements: " '(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of

2005Additionally, "with regard to the second and third Duren elements, a defendant asserting a fair cross-section violation `must demonstrate ... not only that [blacks] *991 were not adequately represented on his jury venire, but also that this was the general practice in other venires.' Timmel v. Phillips, 799 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1986)." Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d at 150 .

2009“Tn order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.’ “Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979).” Pierce v. State, 576 So.2d 236, 241 (Ala.

2005Byrd said that after the method of selecting grand-jury foreperson had changed blacks had been selected as grand-jury forepersons. "`"In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selecti

2023It does not ensure any particular venire." Gavin v. State, 891 So. 2d 907, 945 (Ala. Crim.

2014So long as the master jury wheel is adequate and the prescribed procedure is thereafter followed, there can be no complaint that the panel ultimately produced by random selection is somehow underrepresentative in result.”) (citations omitted).’ “[Sistrunk v. State,] 630 So.2d [147] at 149-50 [(Ala.Crim.App.1993)]. ‘When raising a claim under [the fair-cross-section] requirement, a defendant “has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of a ‘fair cross section’ violation.” ’ Id. at 149, quoting Pierce v. State, 576 So,2d 236, 241 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). “ ‘In order to establish a prima facie

2026In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking to establish a prima facie case of a violation of the fair cross-section requirement must demonstrate the following three elements: " '(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of

2026In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking to establish a prima facie case of a violation of the fair cross-section requirement must demonstrate the following three elements: " '(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of

2005Additionally, "with regard to the second and third Duren elements, a defendant asserting a fair cross-section violation `must demonstrate ... not only that [blacks] *991 were not adequately represented on his jury venire, but also that this was the general practice in other venires.' Timmel v. Phillips, 799 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1986)." Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d at 150 .

2003Additionally, "with regard to the second and third Duren elements, a defendant asserting a fair cross-section violation `must demonstrate ... not only that [blacks] were not adequately represented on his jury venire, but also that this was the general practice in other venires.' Timmel v. Phillips, 799 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1986)." Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d at 150 .'" Travis, 776 So.2d at 838, quoting Stanton v. State, 648 So.2d 638, 640-41 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).

2023(Johnson's brief, pp. 42-49.) " 'In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Supreme Court of the United States explained: " ' "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be 10 CR-21-0291 excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to syste

2015In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Supreme Court of the United States explained: “In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepre-sentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection

2023See id. at 946–47; Carroll v. State, 852 So. 2d 801 , 807–08 (Ala. Crim.

2015See id. at 946-47 ; Carroll v. State, 852 So.2d 801, 807-08 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 972 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d 147, 149-50 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2015See id. at 946-47 ; Carroll v. State, 852 So.2d 801, 807-08 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 972 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d 147, 149-50 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2014See id. at 946-47 ; Carroll v. State, 852 So.2d 801, 807-08 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 972 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d 147, 149-50 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Gholston v. State, 57 So.3d 178, 180-81 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).

2003"In the absence of a showing of systematic exclusion, the showing of a disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population of the county in which venue is situated and the percentage of blacks on the venire does not establish a violation of the fair cross-section requirement." Stewart v. State, 623 So.2d 413, 415 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2000In the absence of a showing of systematic exclusion, the showing of a disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population of the county in which venue is situated and the percentage of blacks on the venire does not establish a violation of the fair cross section requirement.' Stewart v. State , 623 So.2d 413 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993)." "` Sistrunk , 630 So.2d at 150 .'" McNair v. State , 706 So.2d 828 , 841-42 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 706 So.2d 828 (Ala. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1064 (1998), quoting, Dobyne v. State , 672 So.2d 1319 , 1328-29 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994).

2005In this case, there was absolutely no showing either that random computerized selection of licensed drivers inherently results in under representation of blacks on jury venires in Conecuh County or that blacks had been underrepresented on other venires in Conecuh County.' " Stanton, 648 So.2d at 640-41 .

2003Additionally, "with regard to the second and third Duren elements, a defendant asserting a fair cross-section violation `must demonstrate ... not only that [blacks] were not adequately represented on his jury venire, but also that this was the general practice in other venires.' Timmel v. Phillips, 799 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1986)." Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d at 150 .'" Travis, 776 So.2d at 838, quoting Stanton v. State, 648 So.2d 638, 640-41 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).

2000The trial court properly denied Gamble's challenge to the venire and to the jury on these grounds. "`In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.'" Ex parte Land, 678

1999"The Court: Overruled." This Court in Benefield v. State, 726 So.2d 286 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), stated: "`[I]n Duren [v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668-69 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979) ], the Court stated: "`"In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable

2005See Ex parte Dobyne, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala.1995).

1997See Ex parte Dobyne, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala.1995).

1994See Johnson v. State, 502 So.2d 877, 880 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) (venire need not be `"a perfect mirror of the community or accurately reflect the proportionate strength of every identifiable group."')." ". . . . "`In the absence of a showing of systematic exclusion, the showing of a disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population of the county in which venue is situated and the percentage of blacks on the venire does not establish a violation of the fair cross-section requirement.' Stewart v. State, 623 So.2d 413 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993)." Sistrunk, 630 So.2d at 150 .

1993As in Johnson v. State , 502 So.2d 877 , 880 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), the appellant "makes no claim as to proportionality on the master list, but only as to the venire in his case." The appellant misapprehends the nature of the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment.

2014See id. at 946-47 ; Carroll v. State, 852 So.2d 801, 807-08 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 972 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Sistrunk v. State, 630 So.2d 147, 149-50 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Gholston v. State, 57 So.3d 178, 180-81 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).

2014“The Duren Court defined systematic exclusion as exclusion that is ‘inherent in the particular jury-s'electión process utilized.’” Gholston v. State, 57 So.3d 178, 181 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 366 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979)).

1996He argues that the method of drawing the panel from a list of citizens having a driver's license is unconstitutional because it "excludes many persons who may he registered voters and good, decent, law-abiding folks, who do not have a driver's license." "The fair cross-section test set out in Duren v. Missouri , 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), is whether a 'distinctive group' in the community has been underrepresented in venires as a result of systematic exclusion of that group in the jury selection process." Joyce v. State , 605 So.2d 1243 , 1245 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992).

1996He argues that the method of drawing the panel from a list of citizens having a driver's license is unconstitutional because it "excludes many persons who may be registered voters and good, decent, law-abiding folks, who do not have a driver's license." "The fair cross-section test set out in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), is whether a `distinctive group' in the community has been underrepresented in venires as a result of systematic exclusion of that group in the jury selection process." Joyce v. State, 605 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).

1992McMillian v. State, 594 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).

1992See McMillian v. State , 594 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), remanded, 594 So.2d 1288 (Ala. 1992), on remand, 594 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992).

1990Of course, in this case petitioner seeks an extension of the fair cross-section requirement from the venire to the petit jury—but that variation calls into question the scope of the Sixth Amendment guarantee, not his standing to assert it." 493 U.S. at 476-77 , 110 S.Ct. at 805 .

1990Of course, in this case petitioner seeks an extension of the fair cross-section requirement from the venire to the petit jury—but that variation calls into question the scope of the Sixth Amendment guarantee, not his standing to assert it." 493 U.S. at 476-77 , 110 S.Ct. at 805 .

2000In the absence of a showing of systematic exclusion, the showing of a disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population of the county in which venue is situated and the percentage of blacks on the venire does not establish a violation of the fair cross section requirement.' Stewart v. State , 623 So.2d 413 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993)." "` Sistrunk , 630 So.2d at 150 .'" McNair v. State , 706 So.2d 828 , 841-42 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 706 So.2d 828 (Ala. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1064 (1998), quoting, Dobyne v. State , 672 So.2d 1319 , 1328-29 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994).

1997In the absence of a showing of systematic exclusion, the showing of a disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population of the county in which venue is situated and the percentage of blacks on the venire does not establish a violation of the fair cross-section requirement." Stewart v. State, 623 So.2d 413 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).' "Sistrunk, 630 So.2d at 150 ." Dobyne v. State, 672 So.2d 1319, 1328-29 (Ala.Cr.App.1994).