absolute disparity test in Iowa

2022Harper flagged Thongvanh as being potentially “dispositive to [his] fair cross-section claim,” noting the relevant issue to be decided in that case was whether State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2017), which abrogated the exclusive use of the absolute disparity test as a means of proving underrepresentation, applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.

2020The court held “the district court made an error of law in concluding the absolute disparity test must be used in deciding whether the jury pool was drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.” Plain, 898 N.W.2d at 829 , holding modified by State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019).

2022In doing so, the court ruled that “it is no longer appropriate to rely exclusively upon the absolute disparity test as an indicator of 7 representativeness.” Id. at 826 (overruling State v. Jones, 490 N.W.2d 787 , 792– 93 (Iowa 1992)).

2017In adopting the absolute disparity test in Jones, we noted that the Supreme Court had determined that “the underrepresentation of as much as ten percent” did not establish a prima facie case for the second Duren prong. 490 N.W.2d at 793 .

2022In Lilly, the supreme court concluded standard-deviation analysis “get[s] at the heart of the matter . . . the probability that the disparity between a group’s jury- eligible population and the group’s percentage in the qualified jury pool is attributable to random chance.” 930 N.W.2d at 302 (citation omitted).

2020The court held “the district court made an error of law in concluding the absolute disparity test must be used in deciding whether the jury pool was drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.” Plain, 898 N.W.2d at 829 , holding modified by State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019).

2017In Thongvanh v. State, we decided a 0.18% absolute disparity between Asians selected for jury duty (0%) and Asians in the general population of a county (.18%) did not violate the fair cross-section requirement. 494 N.W.2d 679, 683 (Iowa 1993). i. Courts criticize the absolute disparity test.

2017In Thongvanh v. State, we decided a 0.18% absolute disparity between Asians selected for jury duty (0%) and Asians in the general population of a county (.18%) did not violate the fair cross-section requirement. 494 N.W.2d 679, 683 (Iowa 1993). i. Courts criticize the absolute disparity test.

2017At the time they were decided, the scope of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S. Ct. 824 (1965), and Castaneda, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S. Ct. 1272 , was unclear.

2017At the time they were decided, the scope of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S. Ct. 824 (1965), and Castaneda, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S. Ct. 1272 , was unclear.

2017At the time they were decided, the scope of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S. Ct. 824 (1965), and Castaneda, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S. Ct. 1272 , was unclear.

2017At the time they were decided, the scope of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S. Ct. 824 (1965), and Castaneda, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S. Ct. 1272 , was unclear.