Schanbarger v. Macy

Second Circuit

Schanbarger v. Macy

77 F.3d 1424, 1996 WL 118463

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

DocketNo. 1026, Docket 95-7810

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 77 F.3d 1424 (Schanbarger v. Macy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schanbarger v. Macy, 77 F.3d 1424, 1996 WL 118463 (2d Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Donald Sehanbarger 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Donald Sehanbarger 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F.3d 1424, 1996 WL 118463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schanbarger-v-macy-ca2-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack