United States v. Flynn

106 F. Supp. 966, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4115
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 25, 1952
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 106 F. Supp. 966 (United States v. Flynn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Flynn, 106 F. Supp. 966, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4115 (S.D.N.Y. 1952).

Opinion

DIMOCK, District Judge.

Defendants’ challenge to the array was disposed of from the bench adversely to the challenge. In view of the possibility of such challenges in future cases, however, I have thought best to record in this opinion the reasons for my action.

We are enjoined by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220, 66 S.Ct. 984, 985, 90 L.Ed. 1181, that “The American tradition of trial by jury, considered in connection with either criminal or civil proceedings, necessarily contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community.” While the general principle undoubtedly is that the various classes of the population must be fairly represented in this cross-section, it need not be a mathematically correct proportional representation of every class, the rich and the poor, the illiterate and the educated, the young and the old, the dull and the bright. 'In the Thiel opinion itself, Mr. Justice Murphy said, 328 U.S. at page 224, 66 S.Ct. at page 987: “It is clear that a federal judge would be justified in excusing a daily wage earner for whom jury service would entail an undue financial hardship.” Similarly in United States v. Dennis, 2 Cir., 183 F.2d 201, the Court of Appeals relied upon state statutes which fixed property and character qualifications of jurors. When hereinafter using the term “cross-section of the community”, therefore, I shall refer to the result of a random selection tempered by such matters as releases on account of financial hardship or disqualifications for defect of estate or want of proper character.

In support of their challenge to the array defendants stated that the “essence of the challenge is that the method of jury selection is such as to discriminate against manual' workers (and the poor) and against Negro and Puerto Rican citizens, and in favor of the owning, well-to-do classes in the community and their agents and representatives.”

The subject is complicated and perhaps belongs philosophically in the realm of statistics rather than law. At the risk of oversimplification, therefore, I shall attempt to state in advance my conclusion and the method by which it was reached, in the hope that it will make the detailed statement which follows intelligible.

My conclusion is that the list from which the panel of veniremen available for the choice of jurors in this case was drawn by lot constitutes a cross-section of the community. Defendants have, therefore, no tenable ground of complaint.

That list was the subject of defendants’ attack. The list was made up by selection in two steps: in the first step persons were selected to whom should be-sent notices to call at the clerk’s office for consideration of their qualifications; in the second step the qualifications of those who appeared were considered and those whose names were to' be put on the jury list were selected.

Objection was made that, in the first selection, names were chosen in such way as to discriminate against manual workers and non-whites' and that, in the second selection, there was deliberate discrimination against manual workers and non-whites.

To substantiate this charge, defendants offered to prove a discrepancy between the relative proportions of certain classes in the population and on the jury list. In examining the discrepancy the question arose whether it was the result of selection of those who were to receive notices in the first step or was the result of selection from *968 among those who had received notices in the second step or was the result of both.

The jury list from which the veniremen on the panels had been chosen by lot was made up in the past with no attempt to reach a cross-section of the population but in recent years notices have been sent out to persons selected at random and .in accordance with the voting population of the various localities with a modification which I will mention later. Such a method of sending out notices satisfies me as an ideal system. Therefore, if the veniremen resulting from those notices could be separately ranged in classes, the relative proportions of the classes would constitute a norm for the result of an ideal system of selection in the first step combined with the actual practice of selection in the second step.

Such a study proved possible and was made. In the norm resulting from the combination of this ideal first step selection with the actual second step selection the relative proportions of the various classes were substantially the same as on the jury list. It thus appeared that the disproportion between the representation in the population and in the panels arose as a result of selection in the second step.

Accordingly the actual practice of selection in the second step was studied. It appeared that lawful standards of qualification were applied and that there was nothing improper in any of the procedures involved in selecting from among .those who responded to. notices persons whose names were placed upon the jury list. Rejection of the challenge followed.

A few words should be said as to the modification mentioned earlier. While notices were sent to persons in Manhattan and the Bronx during the norm period in strict accordance with the voting population of each" assembly district, notices were going to Westchester without such a careful reference to voting population. This raised a problem with respect to the validity of the result ás a norm since the raw figures may not have reflected an ideal system of selection in the first step. The attempt to solve this problem led to an analysis of the effect on the ideal system of the sending of the notices to Westchester.and also to a method of adjustment to allow for it. A large part of the succeeding discussion is devoted to that attempt at solution. The problem was solved to my satisfaction and I concluded that, notwithstanding the treatment of Westchester in the data, I was justified in holding that the relative proportions of the classes which would have resulted from the combination of an ideal first step selection system and the actual second step practice .would not have differed substantially from the relative proportions of the classes on the jury list.

The Procedure.

To substantiate their allegations, defendants made three written offers of proof. These were supplemented by the testimony of the jury clerk whose duty it is to obtain qualified veniremen in' the Southern District of New York and of the deputy clerk who assists him. These two witnesses were examined by defendants and cross-examined by the Govérnment. In addition, the Government submitted certain tables or analyses and testimony in ‘explanation of them.

The Government moved to dismiss the challenge on the ground that, even if defendants should establish the facts which they offered to prove, the sum total of those facts and the facts as to which oral testimony was given would not suffice to support the challenge.

There was no direct evidence of any intention to discriminate against or in favor of any group, race or class.

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

Related

United States v. Leonetti
291 F. Supp. 461 (S.D. New York, 1968)
United States v. Crawford
15 C.M.A. 31 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1964)
Yates v. United States
225 F.2d 146 (Ninth Circuit, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 F. Supp. 966, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-flynn-nysd-1952.