Fair Cross-Section Requirement

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

• Welcome v. Blackburn
  793 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding jury instructions, jury composition, sufficiency of evidence, vagueness of aggravating circumstances, duplication of elements, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit.
• Harris v. Wyrick
  644 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the pretrial identification, though suggestive, was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, and the jury selection process did not violate the fair cross-section requirement.
• Berry v. Cooper
  577 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the steps taken to remedy past discrimination in jury list compilation were inadequate, and additional corrective measures are required.
• Smith v. Fairman
  862 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the victim's prior inconsistent statement was constitutional error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
• Ford v. Seabold
  841 F.2d 677· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section violation because young adults and college students are not distinctive groups, and the underrepresentation of women was not shown to be the result of systematic excl
• Amadeo v. Kemp
  816 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the introduction of 'other crimes' evidence did not deny the petitioner a fair trial, and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default in challenging jury composition.
• Alburquerque v. Bara
  628 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state's procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional claim were not satisfied in a way that would bar federal habeas review, and that the appellant's trial jury was sworn after the date of Taylor v. Louisiana, making the ruling applicable.
• The United States v. Yazzie
  660 F.2d 422· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection, and that the jury instructions regarding deadly weapons and intoxication were proper.
• United States v. Rodriquez-Cardenas
  866 F.2d 390· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that non-black defendants lack standing to raise a Batson challenge regarding the exclusion of black jurors, and that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement does not apply to petit juries. The court also affirmed the admission of two tape-recorded con
• Leonard v. State
  659 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-08-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of African-Americans from jury service due to insufficient statistical evidence and that the search of his room was lawful based on his grandmother's consent.
• Walton v. Caspari
  916 F.2d 1352· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's conditional grant of habeas corpus, holding that the prosecutor's discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the Garrett decision applied retroactively.
• United States v. Di Pasquale
  864 F.2d 271· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Batson hearing for Italian-Americans, denying a motion for recusal, enhancing sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 without specific notice, or in its grand jury selection process.
• United States v. Lynch
  792 F.2d 269· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 10×
• Anaya v. Hansen
  781 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that blue collar workers, young adults, and less educated individuals do not constitute "cognizable" or "distinctive" groups under the Duren test for Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenges, and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Onelio Rodriguez
  776 F.2d 1509· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation because the absolute disparity in representation of blacks and Hispanics on jury venires did not exceed ten percent.
• United States v. Cabrera-Sarmiento
  533 F. Supp. 799· S.D. Fla.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while constitutional significance attaches to the office of federal grand jury foreperson, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and their Sixth Amendment claim also failed because th
• United States v. Obie Goodlow, Jr.
  597 F.2d 159· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' challenges to the jury array on statutory and constitutional grounds were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Holland v. McGINNIS
  963 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Des Plaines confession was voluntary and that the Batson claim was barred by Teague v. Lane because Powers v. Ohio announced a new rule.
• Evans v. Lewis
  855 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the death sentence is reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase.
• Nevius v. Sumner
  852 F.2d 463· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges did not violate the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments, the denial of an evidentiary hearing was proper, and the indictment was not defective.
• Timmel v. Lyman Phillips, M.D.
  799 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 8×
  A party must demonstrate systematic exclusion and general underrepresentation, not just a single unrepresentative venire, to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement.
• Solles v. Israel
  868 F.2d 242· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct, while egregious, did not rise to the level of constitutional error requiring habeas relief, and that defense counsel's performance was effective.
• Gordon v. Duran
  895 F.2d 610· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as none of the petitioner's claims presented a basis for federal relief.
• Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid, but his death sentence should be reinstated, finding no constitutional error in jury selection or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prior vacating of the sentence was based on an overruled precedent.
• Curry v. Estelle
  524 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a governor's commutation of a death sentence, even after it was vacated, does not violate constitutional rights and that a conviction based on a grand jury systematically excluding a class of citizens is subject to attack without showing prejudice.
• Woods v. Munns
  347 F.2d 948· 10th Cir.· 1965-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove purposeful discrimination in jury selection or prejudice denying a fair trial, and that the jury instruction on conspiracy was proper under Kansas law.
• Berryhill v. Zant
  858 F.2d 633· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court's voir dire procedure was constitutionally inadequate to unearth prejudice given the significant possibility of prejudice from pretrial publicity.
• O'Quendo v. State
  823 So. 2d 834· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-08-16 ·cited 4×
  A judge conducting general jury qualification is a 'presiding judge' authorized to excuse jurors under section 40.013(5), Florida Statutes, and any error in excusing a public defender was harmless.
• Blaine Eugene Johnson v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 107· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's Batson claim is procedurally barred due to failure to raise it on direct appeal, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unpersuasive.
• United States v. Clemmons
  892 F.2d 1153· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a juror was not a violation of the defendant's equal protection rights, and the indictment and evidence were sufficient to support the conviction.
• Benson v. Armontrout
  767 F.2d 454· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction, as an appeal had already been decided.
• United States v. Wyrick
  675 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Constitution's fair cross-section requirement due to the exclusion of women from jury venires.
• United States v. Ware
  473 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Selective Service Act was valid, and his various challenges to the indictment, jury selection, and jury instructions were without merit.
• Ramseur v. Beyer
  983 F.2d 1215· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 3×
  A criminal defendant fails to establish an equal protection violation in grand jury selection when prospective jurors are temporarily set aside based on race if ultimately empaneled, the judge's purpose is achieving representativeness rather than invidious discrimination, and the
• United States v. Kennedy
  557 F. Supp. 2d 1311· N.D. Fla.· 2008-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the defendant's motion to vacate his sentence.
• United States v. Garcia
  991 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate systematic exclusion of minority groups in the jury selection process and that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacked merit.
• United States v. Womack
  985 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that a defendant must present statistical evidence to establish a prima facie case for a jury selection violation and that a departure below the statutory minimum sentence requires a specific motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).
• Brewer v. Crispus NIX
  963 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that excluding individuals over sixty-five from jury duty does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement, and that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the exact timing of a witness's immunity grant.
• United States v. GUY
  924 F.2d 702· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the jury selection process, the voir dire, or the denial of the jury's request for witness testimony during deliberations.
• Haley v. Armontrout
  924 F.2d 735· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief on all grounds.
• Buckley Andre Bruner v. E.P. Perini
  875 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of the sole black juror was not "systematic exclusion" under pre-Batson precedent and that the identification testimony was reliable.
• United States v. Duran De Amesquita
  582 F. Supp. 1326· S.D. Fla.· 1984-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for constitutional violations in jury selection, denying their motions to dismiss the indictments.
• Jackson Morgan v. United States
  696 F.2d 1239· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's second motion to vacate conviction without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Facchiano
  500 F. Supp. 896· S.D. Fla.· 1980-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a statistically significant underrepresentation of a cognizable group on a jury master wheel, stemming solely from lower voter registration rates, does not constitute a substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act or violate the Sixth
• United States v. Abarca-Espinoza
  440 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the informant's identity was not discoverable and that the jury selection process was not unconstitutional.
• United States v. Aguero
  248 F. Supp. 2d 1150· S.D. Fla.· 2003-01-23
  The court held that defendants failed to establish a substantial violation of the Jury Selection Act or a prima facie case of a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation, thus denying their motion to stay proceedings.
• Williams v. Florida
  109 F. Supp. 2d 1372· S.D. Fla.· 2000-08-23
  The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied because the petitioner failed to present evidence of systematic exclusion or purposeful discrimination in jury selection and the presumption of regularity attaches to the conviction.
• Williams v. Whitley
  994 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-20
• United States v. Bianco
  998 F.2d 1112· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-19
  The court held that the warrant for Failla's home was overly broad on its face but could be saved by reference to the affidavit, and that the 'roving bug' evidence was admissible despite statutory disclosure violations due to good faith.
• United States v. Fletcher
  965 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-04
  The court held that excusing college students from the venire does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement because college students are not a 'distinctive' group.