Donald Schanbarger v. Robert MacY Jr., Hudson Falls Paul J. Brown Andrew S. Conley Marjorie Clark Clarisse Mondoux

77 F.3d 1424, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4364

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: March 8, 1996
• Docket: 1026
• Status: Published

Opinion

77 F.3d 1424

Donald SCHANBARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert MACY, Jr., Defendant,
Hudson Falls; Paul J. Brown; Andrew S. Conley; Marjorie
Clark; Clarisse Mondoux, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1026, Docket 95-7810.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Submitted March 1, 1996.
Decided March 8, 1996.

Donald Schanbarger, pro se, Salem, New York, for Appellant.

Veronica Carrozza O'Dell, Fitzgerald Morris Baker & Firth, Glens Falls, New York, for Appellees Hudson Falls, Paul J. Brown, and Andrew S. Conley.

Jeff Culkin, Bouck, Holloway, Kiernan & Casey, Albany, New York, for Appellee Marjorie Clark.

Mark E. Cerasano, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, Glens Falls, New York, for Appellee Clarisse Mondoux.

Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Schanbarger claims that his jury trial was invalid because his jury was selected based on a venire drawn from voter registration lists. For the reasons stated in United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 676-78 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 904, 111 S.Ct. 1102, 113 L.Ed.2d 213 (1991), and Bershatsky v. Levin, No. CV-95-4121, slip op. at 4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 1996) (Trager, J.), we hold that, absent positive evidence that some groups have been hindered in attempting to register to vote, a jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of Equal Protection. See also United States v. Ashley, 54 F.3d 311, 314-15 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 232, 133 L.Ed.2d 161 (1995); United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1448 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1205, 108 S.Ct. 2846, 101 L.Ed.2d 883 (1988). No such evidence was offered.

We have reviewed appellant's other claims and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm.