Fair Cross-Section Requirement

112 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Pepe
  747 F.2d 632· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 165×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge the RICO offense and the evidence supported the convictions, except for Francis Santo on count five. The trial judge's rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. Epifanio Sanchez-Lopez
  879 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 146×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion for election of counts because the conspiracy charges for cocaine and heroin were multiplicious. The court also found that the joinder of alienage counts with drug counts was proper and that the judge's comments d
• United States v. Howard "Sonny" Hawkins
  661 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 99×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, cross-examination restrictions, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, refusal of a James hearing, or judicial bias.
• Birt v. Montgomery
  725 F.2d 587· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 96×
• McCRAY v. Abrams
  750 F.2d 1113· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit prosecutors from using peremptory challenges to discriminate based on race, and that the defendant established a prima facie case. However, the court vacated the judgment to allow the state an opportunity to rebut t
• United States v. Berry
  627 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the defendant's jury selection and prosecutorial misconduct claims did not warrant reversal of his conviction.
• Lindsey v. Smith
  820 F.2d 1137· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit.
• Willis v. Zant
  720 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims regarding the systematic exclusion of young adults from the jury venire and the prosecutor's historical practice of excluding black individuals from juries through peremptory challenges.
• United States v. Marcello
  423 F.2d 993· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-18 ·cited 74×
• Cunningham v. Zant
  928 F.2d 1006· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the trial court's oral jury charge on mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase was constitutionally deficient, warranting habeas relief, but found the jury charge on intent to be harmless error and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to
• Gordon v. State
  704 So. 2d 107· Fla.· 1997-11-26 ·cited 70×
  Robert Gordon was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the contract killing of Dr. Louis Davidson, whose death resulted from a meticulously planned murder arranged by Davidson's estranged wife and carried out with a co-defendant. The Florida Supreme Court a
• United States v. Butler
  611 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the jury selection process was constitutional, the warrantless arrests and seizures were lawful, the denial of severance was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy to possess marijuana and aiding and abetting possessi
• United States v. Herbert
  698 F.2d 981· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the jury selection plan was constitutional and a judge's comment was harmless error for one defendant, but reversed convictions for another due to an erroneous jury instruction on scienter that was not harmless.
• United States v. Perez-Hernandez
  672 F.2d 1380· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 66×
  Discrimination in the selection of a federal grand jury foreman does not require reversal of a conviction because the foreman's role is not significant to the administration of justice.
• United States v. Potter
  552 F.2d 901· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-26 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish that the age group 18-34 or the less educated are cognizable groups for jury selection, and that the underrepresentation of Black individuals was not substantial. The court also affirmed the validity of the border search of th
• United States v. Miller
  771 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the Sherman Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to price-fixing, the indictment was sufficient, the grand jury composition challenge failed, and Jencks Act violations were harmless errors.
• United States v. C.L. Childress
  715 F.2d 1313· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of black jurors through the government's use of peremptory challenges, as required by Swain v. Alabama.
• United States v. Esle
  743 F.2d 1465· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 61×
  The court held that appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation because they did not prove the percentage of Hispanics eligible for jury service in the general population.
• Zicarelli v. Gray
  543 F.2d 466· 3d Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 56×
  The court did not definitively rule on the jury selection issue as it was not presented and the case's disposition made it unnecessary.
• United States v. Ross
  468 F.2d 1213· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-26 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for refusing induction was valid, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Gordon v. State
  863 So. 2d 1215· Fla.· 2003-12-18 ·cited 49×
  Robert Gordon, sentenced to death for first-degree murder, appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.851. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial, rejecting Gordon's multiple ineffective a
• Booker v. Jabe
  775 F.2d 762· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-29 ·cited 48×
  The systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race violates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an impartial jury, even if it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment under Swain v. Alabama.
• Foster v. Sparks
  506 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the class action based on the named plaintiffs being on the traverse jury list, as they were proper representatives of a class alleging systematic jury discrimination.
• United States v. Maskeny
  609 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the marijuana species defense was foreclosed by precedent, the warrantless search of the briefcase was a lawful border search, and the jury selection process did not violate constitutional or statutory requirements.
• Harris v. Pulley
  885 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the extensive pretrial publicity did not create a presumption of prejudice and that the voir dire examination demonstrated the jury was impartial, thus denying the claim of a violation of the right to a fair trial.
• United States v. Hafen
  726 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-01 ·cited 39×
  A defendant's waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent if supported by evidence of their background and understanding, even without a specific judicial warning of the dangers of self-representation. Statistical disparity alone, especially when using comparative measures for s
• Barber v. Ponte
  772 F.2d 982· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion is unsupported by law or the record.
• United States v. Gordon-Nikkar
  518 F.2d 972· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 35×
  The court held that testimony regarding conversations in an attorney's office was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because a non-client was present and the conversations concerned plans to commit perjury. The court also held that excluding resident aliens from feder
• United States v. McANDERSON
  914 F.2d 934· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury selection and composition did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, and that evidence of prior bad acts was properly admitted.
• United States v. Zirpolo
  450 F.2d 424· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-19 ·cited 34×
  A jury selection procedure that systematically excludes or underrepresents a cognizable group, such as women, violates federal law and renders any indictment returned by such a jury void.
• United States v. WYK
  840 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendant's participation.
• Donald v. Dumont
  513 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a procedural waiver of a challenge to grand jury composition under state law, absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice, bars federal habeas corpus relief, even if the law at the time of trial was unfavorable to the claim.
• United States v. Jones
  687 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence despite chain of custody questions, in allowing the government's case agent to remain in the courtroom, or in admitting expert testimony based on a manufacturer's sample, and that the defendant
• United States v. Vicente Carrodeguas
  747 F.2d 1390· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-05 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the government's burden of proof, and that a co-defendant's closing argument did not improperly comment on the appellants' failure to testify.
• Keeten v. Garrison
  742 F.2d 129· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 28×
  A juror's uncertainty about imposing the death penalty does not automatically mean they are unable or unwilling to follow the law, and thus cannot be grounds for exclusion for cause.
• Reed v. State
  292 So. 2d 7· Fla.· 1974-02-13 ·cited 28×
  Willie James Reed was convicted of robbery and appealed, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's jury selection statute (Fla.Stat. Ch. 40) and its application in Dade County on grounds that it violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury selected from a fai
• Bowen v. Kemp
  769 F.2d 672· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-06 ·cited 27×
  The petitioner lacks standing to assert an Equal Protection claim based on the underrepresentation of women on the jury pool, as he is not a member of the underrepresented group.
• MacHetti v. Linahan
  679 F.2d 236· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that Georgia's jury selection procedure, which allowed women to opt-out of service, resulted in unconstitutional underrepresentation of women on jury venires, violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment fair cross-section requirement.
• United States v. Joseph
  892 F.2d 118· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found in a tote bag, nor in dismissing a prospective juror who indicated his religious beliefs would override court instructions.
• United States v. Clifford
  640 F.2d 150· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony offered to show a general climate of violence, in its voir dire regarding racial prejudice, or in denying a motion to quash the venire for underrepresentation of American Indians.
• Belle Few Thompson v. Sheppard
  490 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-08 ·cited 26×
  A jury list drawn objectively and at random from the entire voting list is presumed to be representative, and the burden is on the challenger to prove constitutional deficiency.
• Spencer v. State
  545 So. 2d 1352· Fla.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 24×
  Leonard Spencer, a black defendant convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appeals his conviction challenging the jury selection process in Palm Beach County. The Florida Supreme Court reverses for a new trial, finding that the county's two-district
• United States v. Salamone
  800 F.2d 1216· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 24×
  A showing of actual prejudice is not required for reversal when a class of jurors is arbitrarily excluded from a petit jury, even if the fair cross-section requirement is inapplicable.
• Curfew Davis v. Zant
  721 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 23×
  The trial court's jury instruction on malice unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to the petitioner, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Brown v. Harris
  666 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim regarding jury selection was without merit, and the admission of voice identification testimony did not violate due process, nor was it reversible error.
• United States v. Gelb
  881 F.2d 1155· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that defrauding the Postal Service of postage constitutes mail fraud, postal employees are public officials for bribery statutes, and the RICO conviction was proper based on predicate offenses. The court also found no Sixth Amendment violation regarding jury repres
• United States v. Tuttle
  729 F.2d 1325· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the underrepresentation of Black individuals on jury venires did not meet the threshold for a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation or a substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  917 F.2d 1286· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendants' Batson objection was untimely and that the exclusion of evidence regarding alleged entrapment and lost tapes did not violate their rights.
• Teague v. Lane
  820 F.2d 832· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement applies to the jury pool, not the petit jury itself, and therefore the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Black jurors did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Trujillo v. Sullivan
  815 F.2d 597· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violation in the trial court's procedures regarding lesser included offense instructions or jury voir dire.