NCJ Number
110971
Journal
San Diego Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 5 Dated: (1987) Pages: 1081-1116
Date Published
1987
Length
36 pages
Annotation
Courts presented with objections to jury composition can examine such claims under either the 6th amendment fair cross-section analysis or under the equal protection analysis of the 5th and 14th amendments.
Abstract
Courts have confused the two analyses in cases involving jury venire and, more frequently, in cases involving the petit jury. In Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the fair cross-section requirement to prevent the exclusion of certain groups from the jury venire and eased the onerous burden of proof for equal protection challenges to the petit jury. It failed to grapple with the many cases that still can only be brought under a sixth amendment analysis. It is argued that only the sixth amendment analysis can fully protect a defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. Unlike a fair cross-section claim, an equal protection claim requires the defendant to be a member of the excluded group in order to bring suit. Although no clear definition of cognizability exists, more groups are recognized for sixth amendment purposes. Further, although the Court has not applied the fair cross-section requirement to limit the use of peremptory challenges, applying the requirement to the petit jury is only logical as it definitely applies at the venire level. 209 footnotes.