7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Adrian Ward Rogersgreen2 sentences2012On this point, the panel relied on United States v Rogers, 73 F3d 774, 777 (CA 8, 1996), which concluded that “the comparative disparity calculation provides a more meaningful measure of systematic impact vis-a-vis the ‘distinctive’ group: it calculates the representation of African Americans in jury pools relative to the African- American[s] [in the] community rather than relative to the entire population.” 14 representation of African-Americans in the venire for defendant’s trial was unfair and unreasonable.”35 In addition, the panel briefly addressed the standard-deviation test. 2010Rogers, 73 F3d at 776-777 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Royalgreen2 sentences2012This holding directly contradicts the case-by- 76 Smith, 463 Mich at 204; see also Thomas, 159 F3d at 1150 (disfavoring the comparative-disparity test because “it exaggerates the effect of any deviation”); accord Royal, 174 F3d at 8-9 . 2012Smith, 463 Mich at 204 ; see also Thomas, 159 F3d at 1150 (disfavoring the comparative-disparity test because “it exaggerates the effect of any deviation”); accord Royal, 174 F3d at 8-9 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2012Smith, 463 Mich at 204 ; see also Thomas, 159 F3d at 1150 (disfavoring the comparative-disparity test because “it exaggerates the effect of any deviation”); accord Royal, 174 F3d at 8-9 . 2012Thus, despite its support among prominent commentators, the comparative disparity test, like the absolute disparity test, simply does not measure the probabilistic injuries generated by fair cross-section violations. [Jury poker, 8 Ohio St J Crim L at 545-546.] Smith, 463 Mich at 204 . | 1 | 3 |
Duren v. Missourigreen2 sentences2022Smith, 463 Mich at 203 . 14 The Bryant Court defined “jury pool” as “the group of people summoned to appear for jury duty on a particular day,” and “venire as “the group of potential jurors in the courtroom from which a defendant’s petit jury are selected.” Bryant, 491 Mich at 583 n 4. -10- utilized.” Duren, 439 US at 366 . 2012The majority’s second criticism of the Court of Appeals’ opinion is that it supposedly established “a bright-line rule favoring the comparative-disparity test” and disregarded the results of the other tests.13 Respectfully, I believe that the majority misreads or mischaracterizes the Court of Appeals’ opinion. 11 Duren, 439 US at 366 (“[T]hat a large discrepancy occurred not just occasionally but in every weekly venire for a period of nearly a year manifestly indicates that the cause of the underrepresentation was systematic . . . .”). 12 Other courts also examine the disparity between the rac | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Orangegreen1 sentence2012This approach is clearly contrary to Smith, 463 Mich at 204 , which requires that “no individual method should be used exclusive of the others.” By ultimately using the comparative-disparity test and no other, the Court of Appeals did just the opposite of what Smith requires. 78 The absolute-disparity result of 4.08 percent divided by the 8.25 percent African- American population figure yields a result of 49.45 percent. 79 See Orange, 447 F3d at 798-799 (noting that the court had upheld selection procedures involving comparative disparities between 38.17 percent and 51.22 percent); United 29 M | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael D. Shinaultgreen2 sentences2012COMPARATIVE-DISPARITY TEST Some courts have used the comparative-disparity test, which measures “the decreased likelihood that members of an underrepresented group will be called for jury service . . . .”74 It is calculated by dividing the result of the absolute-disparity test by the percentage of the distinct group in the overall population of the community.75 The comparative-disparity test is not widely used and is criticized because it invites distortion 73 Smith, 463 Mich at 204. 74 United States v Shinault, 147 F3d 1266, 1272 (CA 10, 1998) (emphasis omitted). 75 Id. 2012COMPARATIVE-DISPARITY TEST Some courts have used the comparative-disparity test, which measures “the decreased likelihood that members of an underrepresented group will be called for jury service . . . .”74 It is calculated by dividing the result of the absolute-disparity test by the percentage of the distinct group in the overall population of the community.75 The comparative-disparity test is not widely used and is criticized because it invites distortion 73 Smith, 463 Mich at 204. 74 United States v Shinault, 147 F3d 1266, 1272 (CA 10, 1998) (emphasis omitted). 75 Id. | 1 | 1 |
Rodney E. Thomas v. Robert G. Borg Attorney General, Californiagreen2 sentences2012This holding directly contradicts the case-by- 76 Smith, 463 Mich at 204; see also Thomas, 159 F3d at 1150 (disfavoring the comparative-disparity test because “it exaggerates the effect of any deviation”); accord Royal, 174 F3d at 8-9 . 2012Smith, 463 Mich at 204 ; see also Thomas, 159 F3d at 1150 (disfavoring the comparative-disparity test because “it exaggerates the effect of any deviation”); accord Royal, 174 F3d at 8-9 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hollandgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., State v Hester, 324 SW3d 1, 42-44 (Tenn, 2010) (applying the second Duren prong by calculating the disparity between the racial composition of the county’s population and the racial makeup of the defendant’s venire); Bowman, 349 NC at 467-468 (same); Holland, 2009 Me at ¶ 31; 976 A2d at 237-238 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hestergreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., State v Hester, 324 SW3d 1, 42-44 (Tenn, 2010) (applying the second Duren prong by calculating the disparity between the racial composition of the county’s population and the racial makeup of the defendant’s venire); Bowman, 349 NC at 467-468 (same); Holland, 2009 Me at ¶ 31; 976 A2d at 237-238 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas C. Ramseur v. Howard C. Beyer, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison, Robert Del Tufo, New Jersey Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2000Ramseur v. Beyer, 983 F.2d 1215, 1231 (C.A.3, 1992). 2000See Ramseur, supra at 1235 ; Biaggi, supra at 678 ; Osorio, supra at 978-979 . [14] In the instant case, defendant has not shown underrepresentation under either the absolute disparity test, the comparative disparity test, or standard deviation analysis. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2025Indeed, our Supreme Court criticized this Court for “effectively establishing a bright-line rule favoring the comparative- disparity test when the population of the distinct group is small.” Id. 2024Bryant, 491 Mich at 603-615 . | 3 | 2022–2025 |
United States v. Osorio
green
2 sentences2000See Ramseur, supra at 1235; Biaggi, supra at 678; Osorio, supra at 978-979 . 14 In the instant case, defendant has not shown under-representation under either the absolute disparity test, the comparative disparity test, or standard deviation analysis. 2000See Ramseur, supra at 1235 ; Biaggi, supra at 678 ; Osorio, supra at 978-979 . [14] In the instant case, defendant has not shown underrepresentation under either the absolute disparity test, the comparative disparity test, or standard deviation analysis. | 2 | 1996–2000 |
People v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2012In particular, the panel, after a discussion of the absolute-disparity test and the comparative-disparity test, stated, “We must apply some test to measure the representation of African-Americans in defendant’s venire ....” Bryant II, 289 Mich App at 270 . 2012Justice MARILYN KELLY argues that the Court of Appeals below “properly considered the results of all tests [including the absolute-disparity test], but decided that the comparative disparity test was ‘the most appropriate test to measure underrepresentation in this case,’ ” post at 638, quoting People v Bryant, 289 Mich App 260, 271 ; 796 NW2d 135 (2010), while the majority concludes that Smith requires more than simply alluding to a test and then failing to “consider” it. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2010First, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies only if the facts remain substantially or materially the same, People v Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich App 28, 32 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997), and in this case the trial court conducted several evidentiary hearings on remand, which yielded significant expert testimony regarding each of the three tests. 2010First, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies only if the facts remain substantially or materially the same, People v Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich App 28, 32 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997), and in this case the trial court conducted several evidentiary hearings on remand, which yielded significant expert testimony regarding each of the three tests. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Hubbard
green
1 sentence2010We are further cognizant that some of the concerns with applying the comparative-disparity test to a group that makes up a small percentage of the population also exist with applying the absolute-disparity test, Hubbard, 217 Mich App at 476-477 , that courts typically apply the standard-deviation test in Fourteenth Amendment cases, but not in Sixth Amendment cases, and that no court in the country has accepted application of the standard-deviation test alone as determinative in Sixth Amendment challenges to jury-selection systems, Smith, 463 Mich at 204 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Mario Biaggi, Stanley Simon, Richard Biaggi, Peter Neglia, John Mariotta, and Bernard Ehrlich
green
1 sentence2000See Ramseur, supra at 1235 ; Biaggi, supra at 678 ; Osorio, supra at 978-979 . [14] In the instant case, defendant has not shown underrepresentation under either the absolute disparity test, the comparative disparity test, or standard deviation analysis. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. Gary W. Jackman
green
1 sentence1996These methods include the absolute disparity test, also referred to as the absolute numbers or absolute impact test, Ashley, supra at 314 ; Jackman, supra at 1246 ; Ramseur, supra at 1231; Osorio, supra at 977-978 , the comparative disparity test, Ramseur, supra; Sanders, supra, 51 Cal 3d 492, n 5, and the deviation from expected random selection test, also referred to as the standard deviation test, Ramseur, supra, or the statistical decision theory, Ford, supra at 684, n 5. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Billy R. Ashley, Shaunessy R. Sylvester, Craig Crofton A/K/A Craig C. Ashley, and Leroy Lambert
green
1 sentence1996These methods include the absolute disparity test, also referred to as the absolute numbers or absolute impact test, Ashley, supra at 314 ; Jackman, supra at 1246 ; Ramseur, supra at 1231; Osorio, supra at 977-978 , the comparative disparity test, Ramseur, supra; Sanders, supra, 51 Cal 3d 492, n 5, and the deviation from expected random selection test, also referred to as the standard deviation test, Ramseur, supra, or the statistical decision theory, Ford, supra at 684, n 5. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Alexander v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1996The absolute disparity test is most often applied in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, People v Bell, 49 Cal 3d 502; 527, n 14; 262 Cal Rptr 1; 778 P2d 129 (1989), whereas the comparative disparity and the standard deviation tests are more likely to be applied in equal protection cases, Castaneda v Partida, 430 US 482, 492-499 ; 97 S Ct 1272 ; 51 L Ed 2d 498 (1977); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 626-631 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Ramseur, supra at 1231-1233; Ford, supra at 684, n 5; Alston v Manson, 791 F2d 255, 258-259 (CA 2, 1986). 1996The absolute disparity test is most often applied in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, People v Bell, 49 Cal 3d 502; 527, n 14; 262 Cal Rptr 1; 778 P2d 129 (1989), whereas the comparative disparity and the standard deviation tests are more likely to be applied in equal protection cases, Castaneda v Partida, 430 US 482, 492-499 ; 97 S Ct 1272 ; 51 L Ed 2d 498 (1977); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 626-631 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Ramseur, supra at 1231-1233; Ford, supra at 684, n 5; Alston v Manson, 791 F2d 255, 258-259 (CA 2, 1986). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Castaneda v. Partida
green
2 sentences1996The absolute disparity test is most often applied in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, People v Bell, 49 Cal 3d 502; 527, n 14; 262 Cal Rptr 1; 778 P2d 129 (1989), whereas the comparative disparity and the standard deviation tests are more likely to be applied in equal protection cases, Castaneda v Partida, 430 US 482, 492-499 ; 97 S Ct 1272 ; 51 L Ed 2d 498 (1977); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 626-631 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Ramseur, supra at 1231-1233; Ford, supra at 684, n 5; Alston v Manson, 791 F2d 255, 258-259 (CA 2, 1986). 1996The absolute disparity test is most often applied in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, People v Bell, 49 Cal 3d 502; 527, n 14; 262 Cal Rptr 1; 778 P2d 129 (1989), whereas the comparative disparity and the standard deviation tests are more likely to be applied in equal protection cases, Castaneda v Partida, 430 US 482, 492-499 ; 97 S Ct 1272 ; 51 L Ed 2d 498 (1977); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 626-631 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Ramseur, supra at 1231-1233; Ford, supra at 684, n 5; Alston v Manson, 791 F2d 255, 258-259 (CA 2, 1986). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Bell
green
2 sentences1996The absolute disparity test is most often applied in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, People v Bell, 49 Cal 3d 502; 527, n 14; 262 Cal Rptr 1; 778 P2d 129 (1989), whereas the comparative disparity and the standard deviation tests are more likely to be applied in equal protection cases, Castaneda v Partida, 430 US 482, 492-499 ; 97 S Ct 1272 ; 51 L Ed 2d 498 (1977); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 626-631 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Ramseur, supra at 1231-1233; Ford, supra at 684, n 5; Alston v Manson, 791 F2d 255, 258-259 (CA 2, 1986). 1996The absolute disparity test is most often applied in Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section cases, People v Bell, 49 Cal 3d 502; 527, n 14; 262 Cal Rptr 1; 778 P2d 129 (1989), whereas the comparative disparity and the standard deviation tests are more likely to be applied in equal protection cases, Castaneda v Partida, 430 US 482, 492-499 ; 97 S Ct 1272 ; 51 L Ed 2d 498 (1977); Alexander v Louisiana, 405 US 625, 626-631 ; 92 S Ct 1221 ; 31 L Ed 2d 536 (1972); Ramseur, supra at 1231-1233; Ford, supra at 684, n 5; Alston v Manson, 791 F2d 255, 258-259 (CA 2, 1986). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Sanders
green
1 sentence1996These methods include the absolute disparity test, also referred to as the absolute numbers or absolute impact test, Ashley, supra at 314 ; Jackman, supra at 1246 ; Ramseur, supra at 1231; Osorio, supra at 977-978 , the comparative disparity test, Ramseur, supra; Sanders, supra, 51 Cal 3d 492, n 5, and the deviation from expected random selection test, also referred to as the standard deviation test, Ramseur, supra, or the statistical decision theory, Ford, supra at 684, n 5. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.