fair cross-section requirement in Kansas

2021The United States Supreme Court has set forth three factors that a person must show to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement: "(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, 364 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. Ed. 2d 5

2021The United States Supreme Court has set forth three factors that a person must show to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement: "(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, 364 , 99 S. Ct. 664 , 58 L. Ed. 2d 5

2001The Court combined Justice Harlan’s second suggested exception with an “accuracy element” that would serve “one of the two principal functions of habeas corpus,” which was to safeguard against a constitutional violation resulting in con *872 viction of an innocent person. 489 U.S. at 312 .

2001The Supreme Court concluded that the first exception suggested by Justice Harlan was not relevant in Teague’s case because “[application of the fair cross section requirement to the petit jury would not accord constitutional protection to any primary activity whatsoever.” 489 U.S. at 311 .

1991Building upon their holding in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , the Supreme Court stated the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement as follows: “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

1991Building upon their holding in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , the Supreme Court stated the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement as follows: "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 *436 reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this under

1990But, the Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en banc and postponed rehearing until after the United *142 States Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986).

1990But, the Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en banc and postponed rehearing until after the United *142 States Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986).