Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duren v. Missourigreen2 sentences1989In a hypothetical example of absolute disparity suggested in Kairys, supra, if 30 percent of the 18-and-over population is Black, but only 20 percent of the source list is Black, the absolute disparity for Blacks is 30 percent minus 20 percent, or 10 percent. ( Id., 65 Cal.L.Rev. at pp. 789-790.) The Supreme Court used an absolute disparity statistical analysis in Duren. ( 439 U.S. at p. 367 [ 58 L.Ed.2d at p. 588 ].) Many federal courts have approved the absolute disparity test as the statistical method of choice by which to make out a prima face fair cross-section violation. 1989In a hypothetical example of absolute disparity suggested in Kairys, supra, if 30 percent of the 18-and-over population is Black, but only 20 percent of the source list is Black, the absolute disparity for Blacks is 30 percent minus 20 percent, or 10 percent. ( Id., 65 Cal.L.Rev. at pp. 789-790.) The Supreme Court used an absolute disparity statistical analysis in Duren. ( 439 U.S. at p. 367 [ 58 L.Ed.2d at p. 588 ].) Many federal courts have approved the absolute disparity test as the statistical method of choice by which to make out a prima face fair cross-section violation. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bellgreen2 sentences2009Additionally, relying on People v. Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d 502, 527 , footnote 14, in which we criticized the use of tests more complex than the absolute disparity test when the group allegedly excluded is very small, the court concluded that because the absolute disparity in the present case was estimated at 3.8 percent by Gyak, and 6.4 percent by Weeks, the disparity was constitutionally insignificant. 2009(See People v. Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 528, fit. 15 [noting that absolute disparity levels of less than *227 11.49 percent have been found to be constitutionally insignificant].) The trial court also stated it was making its decision without reaching the third prong of the test articulated in Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. 357, 364 . | 1 | 2 |
Swain v. Alabamared2 sentences2003If the defendant must prove an absolute disparity of more than 10 percent, as in Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202, 208-209 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , cited with apparent approval by the majority opinion, ante, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d at page 773 , 62 P.3d at page 23 , then the systematic total exclusion of any minorities comprising less than 10 percent of county population would pass constitutional inspection under Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 . 2003If the defendant must prove an absolute disparity of more than 10 percent, as in Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202, 208-209 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , cited with apparent approval by the majority opinion, ante, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d at page 773 , 62 P.3d at page 23 , then the systematic total exclusion of any minorities comprising less than 10 percent of county population would pass constitutional inspection under Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Burgener
green
2 sentences2003But in dictum it criticizes the comparative disparity test as distorting the underrepresentation when the group allegedly excluded is very small (maj. opn., ante, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 773 , 62 P.3d at p. 23 ), yet offers no criticism of the absolute disparity test. 2003But in dictum it criticizes the comparative disparity test as distorting the underrepresentation when the group allegedly excluded is very small (maj. opn., ante, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 773 , 62 P.3d at p. 23 ), yet offers no criticism of the absolute disparity test. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Royal
green
1 sentence2001“Absolute disparity measures the difference between the percentage of members of the distinctive group in the relevant population and the percentage of group member on the jury wheel.” (U.S. v. Royal (1st Cir. 1999) 174 F.3d 1, 6-7 .) In Bell , the challenge to the Contra Costa County jury venire involved similar allegations of underrepresentation of African-Americans. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Sirhan
green
2 sentences1990That opinion first noted our decision in People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710 [ 102 Cal. Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], in which we held that "[t]he use of voter registration lists as the sole source of jurors is not constitutionally invalid [citations], at least in the absence of a showing that the use of those lists resulted `in the systematic exclusion of a "cognizable group or class of qualified citizens."'" ( Id. at pp. 749-750.) Although the Harris plurality then suggested that the defendant was trying to make just such a showing, it did not overrule Sirhan on this point. 1990That opinion first noted our decision in People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710 [ 102 Cal. Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], in which we held that "[t]he use of voter registration lists as the sole source of jurors is not constitutionally invalid [citations], at least in the absence of a showing that the use of those lists resulted `in the systematic exclusion of a "cognizable group or class of qualified citizens."'" ( Id. at pp. 749-750.) Although the Harris plurality then suggested that the defendant was trying to make just such a showing, it did not overrule Sirhan on this point. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Ronald Cecil, United States of America v. Patrick Haddix, United States of America v. Odus Hayes
green
2 sentences1989(See, e.g., United States v. Cecil (4th Cir.1988) 836 F.2d 1431 ; United States ex rel. 1989(See, e.g., United States v. Cecil (4th Cir. 1988) 836 F.2d 1431 ; United States ex rel. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.