(a) Prior to January 1, 2024, the number of jurors to be chosen from each town shall be equal to a percentage of the town's population rounded off to the nearest whole number, such percentage to be determined by the Jury Administrator in accordance with the provisions of this section and section
51-220a. The number of jurors chosen from each town shall reflect the proportional representation of the population of each town within the judicial district. The Jury Administrator shall calculate such percentage by determining each town's proportional share of the population of the judicial district and dividing that proportional share by the town's yield ratio. A town's yield ratio shall be calculated by dividing the number of jurors from such town who, when summoned during the 2019 court year, complied with the summons to appear for jury service, by the product that results when the town's proportional share of the population of the judicial district is multiplied by the total number of jurors summoned in the judicial district in the 2019 court year. As used in this subsection and subsection (b) of this section, “court year” means a one-year period beginning on September first and ending on August thirty-first of the following year.
(b) On and after January 1, 2024, the number of jurors to be chosen from each town shall be equal to a percentage of the town's population rounded off to the nearest whole number, such percentage to be determined by the Jury Administrator in accordance with the provisions of this section and section 51-220a. The number of jurors chosen from each town shall reflect the proportional representation of the population of each town within the judicial district. The Jury Administrator shall calculate such percentage by determining each town's proportional share of the population of the judicial district and dividing that proportional share by the town's yield ratio. A town's yield ratio shall be calculated by dividing the number of jurors from such town who, when summoned during the previous court year, complied with the summons to appear for jury service, by the product that results when the town's proportional share of the population of the judicial district is multiplied by the total number of jurors summoned in the judicial district in the previous court year.
(c) The Jury Administrator shall derive population figures from the most recent decennial census.
(1949 Rev., S. 7928; 1949, S.A. 27; 1949, 1951, S. 1368b; 1953, S. 3176d; 1963, P.A. 505; 1967, P.A. 695, S. 1; P.A. 73-68; P.A. 82-248, S. 123; 82-307, S. 2, 8; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-5, S. 4, 18; P.A. 84-393, S. 4, 18, 20; P.A. 94-169, S. 6, 20; P.A. 22-26, S. 20.)
History: 1963 act increased lowest population bracket by 500 and increased number of jurors in each category; 1967 act increased number in each category and added exclusion of institutional patients from population count; P.A. 73-68 added category consisting of towns with population of less than 750; P.A. 82-248 inserted Subsec. indicators; P.A. 82-307 deleted provisions which set forth the number of jurors for each town as from 15 to 1,012 depending on the relative population of the town and added provisions which established the number of jurors for a town as 1.5% of the town's population, applicable with respect to summoning of jurors on or after September 1, 1983; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-5, effective July 1, 1985, and applicable to summoning of jurors for jury duty on and after September 1, 1986, replaced provision re determination of number of jurors with provision that such number be equal to a percentage of the town's population, such percentage to be determined by the jury administrator, and deleted Subsec. (b) re exclusion of patients of state institutions from population of town for purposes of section; P.A. 84-393 repealed amendments enacted by June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-5 and amended Subsec. (a), making it applicable to jurors selected and summoned to serve on or before August 31, 1986, and added Subsec. (b) re number of jurors to be chosen from each town, applicable to jurors selected and summoned to serve on or after September 1, 1986; P.A. 94-169 eliminated obsolete provisions, effective July 1, 1994; P.A. 22-26 replaced existing provision with Subsec. (a), applicable prior to January 1, 2024, requiring number of jurors to reflect proportional representation of population of each town within judicial district, prescribing methodology for calculating yield ratio and defining “court year”, added Subsec. (b), applicable on and after January 1, 2024, revising methodology for calculating yield ratio and added Subsec. (c) prescribing Jury Administrator to derive population figures from most recent decennial census, effective May 10, 2022.
Section does not discriminate against citizens on the basis of residence; no evidence jury selection process under section resulted in an underrepresentation of black people. 167 C. 539. Cited. 171 C. 395; 197 C. 629; 218 C. 403; 219 C. 215; Id., 231.
Cited. 27 CA 675.
Cited. 34 CS 612.
System of selecting jurors by towns does not, in and of itself, discriminate against black people. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 204, 205.
Notes of Decisions
Johnson v. Comm'r of Corr., 589 A.2d 1214 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 17× “to 1975) § 51-220 had resulted in underrepresentation of black people in the pool of prospective jurors and grand jurors serving New Haven County in 1975, when the trial of the petitioners in that case took place, and that this disparity violated the principle of equal…”
State v. Mack, 500 A.2d 1303 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 5× “e or court order, 2 increased by 1563 the number of jurors to be summoned for the array to serve the New Haven judicial district for the year beginning October 1,1981, approximately one-third above the chief clerk’s estimate of the number needed (4569), which had been submitted…”
State v. Townsend, 356 A.2d 125 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 5× “It is also asserted that then General Statutes § 51-220 established a quota system of jurors to be drawn from each town according to population, where the greater the town the smaller the percentage of electors is needed to £11 the quota, and that this system overtly…”
Parker v. Comm'r of Corr., 610 A.2d 1305 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 8× “to 1975) § 51-220. 5 Healey obtained this list from Nicholas Cimino, chief clerk of the New Haven judicial district and jury commissioner for New Haven County.”
Alston v. Lopes, 621 F. Supp. 992 (D. Conn. 1985).
· cites it 6× “This highly remote probability is sufficient to create a presumption of purposeful discrimination regarding the exclusion of Black jurors caused by § 51-220. 2 Having satisfied the three requirements under Castaneda , the Court concludes that petitioners have met their burden in…”
Jackson v. Comm'r of Corr., 629 A.2d 413 (Conn. 1993).
“to *143 1975) § 51-220 had resulted in underrepresentation of black people in the pool of prospective jurors and grand jurors serving New Haven County in 1975, when the trial of the petitioners in that case took place, and that this disparity violated the principle of equal…”
Austin v. Comm'r of Corr., 814 F. Supp. 233 (D. Conn. 1992).
· cites it 5× “Petitioner was one of the prisoners who filed one of those petitions.”
Watley v. Comm'r of Corr., 592 A.2d 911 (Conn. 1991).
“to 1975) § 51-220 on representation of black or Hispanic people in the pool of jurors available for selection of the jury at his trial.”
Leecan v. Meachum, 822 F. Supp. 54 (D. Conn. 1993).
· cites it 2× “2d 143 (1987), which held that Connecticut's jury selection statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 51-220, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Jackson v. Comm'r of Corr., 592 A.2d 910 (Conn. 1991).
“to 1975) § 51-220 on representation of black or Hispanic people in the pool of jurors available for selection of the jury at his trial.”
Valeriano v. Meachum, 792 F. Supp. 146 (D. Conn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner’s writ was presented at trial together with several like claims as an alleged violation of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 51-220. The claims relied upon the Second Circuit decision in Alston v.”
State v. David, 197 A.2d 348 (Conn. App. Ct. 1962).
· cites it 2× “§ 51-220. In each town there is a jury committee of three electors whose duty it is to furnish for the use of the jury commissioners of the county annually a list containing twice the number of names required by § 51-220 of persons who possess the qualifications *204 specified…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.