JURY SELECTION - EVERYBODY INTO THE POOL - THE CASE FOR SUPPLEMENTING THE VOTER LIST

• NCJ Number: 66923
• Journal: Connecticut Bar Journal Volume: 52 Issue: 6 Dated: (DECEMBER 1978) Pages: 475-502
• Author(s): M P KOSKOFF; B J HODGSON
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 28 pages
• Corporate Author: Connecticut Bar Assoc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF JURY SELECTION IN CONNECTICUT DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND DOES NOT AFFORD ALL SEGMENTS OF THE POPULACE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON JURIES.

Abstract

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CONNECTICUT INDICATES THAT THE LINEAGE OF THE STATE STATUTES GOVERNING JURY SELECTION IS ONE OF RESTRICTION RATHER THAN REPRESENTATION. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT JURIES BE DRAWN FROM A POOL REASONABLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY. SEVERAL FEATURES OF THE STATUTES ESTABLISHING JURY SELECTION PROCEDURES IN CONNECTICUT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH TH ABILITY OF THE STATE'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO COMPLY WITH WITH THIS STANDARD. SECTION 51-220 OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES, THE ONLY PROVISION WHICH ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A MEASURE OF REPRESENTATIVENESS, TENDS TO RENDER THE JURY POOL UNREPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY BY OVER-INCLUDING RESIDENTS OF SMALL TOWNS. THIS MEANS THAT BLACKS, HISPANICS AND OTHER MINORITY GROUPS CONCENTRATED IN CITIES ARE NOT FULLY REPRESENTED. ALSO, THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS AS THE SOURCE FOR NAMES OF JURORS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIEW OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AFFIRMED IN TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA TO HAVE A JURY CHOSEN FROM A SOURCE REASONABLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY. BECAUSE TAYLOR V. LOUISIANA STATED THAT A DEFENDANT NEED ONLY SHOW THAT JURY SELECTION PROCEDURE SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDES DISTINCTIVE GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IT IS URGED THAT CONNECTICUT STATUTES BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN JURY SELECTION. THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT'S RESORT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PROOF OF PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN CASES INVOLVING STATE JURY SELECTION PROCEDURES IS HELD TO BE IN ERROR. CONNECTICUT SHOULD VOLUNTARILY CHANGE ITS SYSTEM RATHER THAN WAIT FOR A CONDEMNATORY HIGHER COURT JUDGMENT, WHICH IS LIKELY IN VIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN DUREN V. MISSOURI OF THE MISSOURI EXEMPTION PROCEDURE WHICH RESULTED IN UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (DEG)