28 U.S.C. § 1861
Declaration of policy
It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 665
cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). “" 28 U. S. C. § 1861 . In that Act, Congress also established the machinery by which the stated policy was to be implemented.”
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). “This plan, as with all other trial court procedures, must implement statutory policies of random juror selection from a fair cross section of the community, 28 U. S. C. § 1861 , and nonexclusion on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status, 18 U.”
United States v. Elmer Brady, Jr., United States of Am. v. Joseph James Waters, 579 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1978). “He charged that the juries were selected in violation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861 , 1862, and 1863. In support of the challenge, Waters filed an affidavit which was later supplemented by another affidavit.”
United States v. Demetrius Sharron Davis, 854 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2017). “During jury selection, because he identified only two of the 37 jurors in the venire as African American, Davis argued that the venire was unfairly discriminatory, allegedly in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Jury Selection and Service…”
United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009). “2d 579 (1979), and the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 . Allegations of racial discrimination in jury pools involve mixed questions of law and fact, and receive de novo review.”
United States v. Alexander Ovalle (94-1566) John Ovalle, Jr. (94-2044) Benito S. Canales (94-2100) Nicholas A. Garcia (94-2263), 136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir. 1998). “THE JURY SELECTION PLAN The appellants 1 contend that the administration of the Jury Selection Plan for the Eastern District of Michigan violates the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 , et seq., their Sixth Amendment right to a jury representing a fair cross…”
United States v. Salvador Hernandez-Estrada, 749 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1861 ; Miller, 771 F.2d at 1227–28.”
People v. Wheeler, 583 P.2d 748 (Cal. 1978). “§§ 1861-1869 ), that "It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in the Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the…”
United States v. Bryant, 523 F.3d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “Finally, appellant seeks a remand of the case with instructions to the District Court to review the preserved jury records from his trial and to hold a hearing to determine whether his jury venire violated the Jury Selection and Service Act ("JSSA"), 28 U.”
Runyon v. United States, 228 F. Supp. 3d 569 (E.D. Va. 2017). “Compliance with the Jury Selection Plan and the Provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seg. In this portion of Claim Fifteen, the Petitioner argues ■ that there was a substantial failure by the court to comply with the procedures in the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.”
United States v. Northside Realty Assocs., Inc., 510 F. Supp. 668 (N.D. Ga. 1981). “1 Our present consideration is restricted to procedural issues raised by the government’s challenge to the timeliness of defendants’ motions under the Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. and Rule 12, F.R.”
United States v. Salvador Hernandez-Estrada, 704 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012). “The JSSA contains a fair cross section guarantee, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 , which is coextensive with the fair cross section requirement of the Sixth Amendment.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1861(a) — 1 case
United States v. Thomas James Hand, III, 496 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1974).
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.