MULTIPLE LISTS FOR JUROR SELECTION - A CASE STUDY FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO

• NCJ Number: 43827
• Author(s): C H MOUNT; W R PABST JR; G T MUNSTERMAN
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 75 pages
• Contract Number(s): J-LEAA-013-76
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; American University
• Corporate Author: Bird Engineering Research Associates, Inc
• Sale Source: Superintendent of Documents, GPO; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THIS REPORT ANALYZES SOURCE LISTS OTHER THAN VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS FOR PROSPECTIVE JURORS, LIMITATIONS OF EACH, ELIMINATING DUPLICATIONS, DRAWING A DEFENSIBLE RANDOM SAMPLE, AND MONITORING RESULTS.

Abstract

LISTS OF REGISTERED VOTERS PROVIDE THE PRINCIPLE SOURCE OF NAMES FOR SELECTING PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES. HOWEVER, VOTER LISTS VARY FROM JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO THE BALANCE OF THE CROSS-SECTION AND WITH RESPECT TO THE INCLUSIVENESS OF THE POPULATION. TO OVERCOME THESE DEFICIENCIES, MANY COURTS ARE SUPPLEMENTING THE VOTER LISTS WITH OTHER LISTS, SUCH AS THE MOTOR VEHICLE LISTS, TELEPHONE LISTS, UTILITY LISTS, AND OTHERS. THIS REPORT EXAMINES IN SOME DETAIL THE LISTS AVAILABLE IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. IT RECOMMENDS THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT USE A COMBINATION OF THE VOTER AND DRIVER LISTS AS A SOURCE OF NAMES. IT ALSO RECOMMENDS SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY FOR COMBINING THESE TWO LISTS. IT FINDS BOTH LISTS TO BE COMPLEMENTARY WITH RESPECT TO BALANCE AND INCLUSIVENESS. OTHER AVAILABLE LISTS ARE FOUND TO HAVE SERIOUS WEAKNESSES. THE PROBLEM OF DUPLICATE RECOGNITION IS DISCUSSED AND A MATCHING CRITERION GIVEN. A NEW METHOD, USING QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO REDUCE THE DUPLICATE LEVEL WHILE MAINTAINING A LOW PROBABILITY OF EXCLUDING A GOOD NAME, IS GIVEN. COURTS NOW USING MULTIPLE LISTS COMBINE THE ENTIRE LIST AND THEN SELECT ONLY A FEW NAMES AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS. A RECENTLY DEVELOPED TECHNIQUE TO ACHIEVE EQUAL PROBABILITY OF SELECTION WITHOUT FULL LIST COMBINATION IS DISCUSSED AND THE METHODOLOGY ILLUSTRATED. THIS METHOD IS SHOWN TO SAVE A GREAT DEAL OF COMPUTER AND/OR PERSONAL TIME. THE PROBLEM OF GEOCODING NAMES INTO PROPER COURT JURISDICTIONS IS ALSO DISCUSSED. APPENDIXES TO THE REPORT PROVIDE A GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT USE OF MULTIPLE LISTS AND A DISCUSSION OF THE LIST CHARACTERISTICS. WHILE THIS IS A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC SITUATION IN SAN DEGO, THE METHODOLOGY APPLIES TO ANY JURISDICTION CONSIDERING THE USE OF MULTIPLE LISTS (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).