FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W226163581> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W226163581 endingPage "522" @default.
• W226163581 startingPage "489" @default.
• W226163581 abstract "The Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires that the venire from which the state and the defendant draw a twelve-person petit jury be a cross-section of the community. The Supreme Court announced a three-prong test in Duren v. Missouri to help courts determine whether there has been a Sixth Amendment violation: (1 ) whether a distinctive group in the community was excluded; (2) whether the venire was not a and reasonable representation of the county population as a whole; and (3) whether that underrepresentation was the result of systematic exclusion. When evaluating the second prong, courts routinely turn to statistical measurements. The four statistical tests that courts have used, including the disparity-of-risk test that the Michigan Supreme Court recently employed in People v. Bryant, fall short of adequately addressing the second prong. This Note proposes two solutions. First, courts should consider the comparative-disparity-of-risk test, borrowed from the medical malpractice loss-of-chance doctrine, as the best measure of whether underrepresentative venires are not and reasonable in relation to the community. Second, judges should consider whether a distinctive group in the community has systematically been excluded before turning to the question of whether an underrepresentative venire is and reasonable in a given community. After considering whether a distinctive group has been excluded, courts may employ the statistical tests as part of their analysis but should not use thresholds to determine what is and reasonable.(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)IntroductionFor over 16 months, a computer error in Kent County, Michigan, ex- cluded nearly 75% of the county's eligible juror population from jury ser- vice.1 Of the 454,000 Kent County names and addresses on the master list of those eligible for jury service, only 118,000 potential jurors received sum- monses.2 Of those people who received jury summonses, the majority of recipients were from zip codes outside the Grand Rapids metro area, exclud- ing a high percentage of the county's black population that lives in Grand Rapids.3 If the computer program had been working properly and Kent County had mailed jury summonses to the whole population for the first 3 months of 2002, then 322 summonses would have been sent to black peo- ple.4 Instead, only 163 black people received jury summonses-half the ex- pected number.5 The black population of Kent County as a whole is approximately 8.25% of the county's total population.6 Four percent of the veniremembers in Kent County were black.7In January 2002, a jury selected from 45 veniremembers8-1 black, 1 Latino, and 43 white-convicted Raymond Lee Bryant,9 a black man.10 Dur- ing the selection of the petit jury,11 Bryant's attorney noticed the venire's skewed composition and made a timely objection,12 arguing that the venire was not reasonably representative of the community13 as required by the Sixth Amendment.14 The trial court denied the motion-a decision that ul- timately reached the Michigan Supreme Court.15The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that Bryant had not estab- lished a violation of the cross-section requirement. 16 Its decision rested on the second prong of the prima facie cross-section test: whether the excluded group's representation in the venire was fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community.17 The court con- sidered four statistical tests to determine whether the representation of black people was and reasonable, including a test that no other court had previously applied-the disparity-of-risk test.18 This Note argues that each of these four prevailing statistical tests for underrepresentation is unwork- able, and it proposes two solutions.Part I examines the history and purpose of the cross-section re- quirement. Part II describes and explains the strengths and weaknesses of the four statistical tests courts use to determine whether a venire is and reasonable and argues that the existing approaches are insufficient because they are not broadly applicable and do not comport with the purposes of the cross-section requirement. …" @default.
• W226163581 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W226163581 creator A5081856900 @default.
• W226163581 date "2013-12-01" @default.
• W226163581 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W226163581 title "Can We Calculate Fairness and Reasonableness? Determining What Satisfies the Fair Cross-Section Requirement of the Sixth Amendment" @default.
• W226163581 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W226163581 type Work @default.
• W226163581 sameAs 226163581 @default.
• W226163581 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W226163581 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W226163581 hasAuthorship W226163581A5081856900 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W226163581 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C144024400 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C149923435 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C151730666 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C17744445 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C199539241 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C2776119841 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C2777267654 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C2778272461 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C2908647359 @default.
• W226163581 hasConceptScore W226163581C86803240 @default.
• W226163581 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W226163581 hasLocation W2261635811 @default.
• W226163581 hasOpenAccess W226163581 @default.
• W226163581 hasPrimaryLocation W2261635811 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W1149286717 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W121787378 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W125406246 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W1570743261 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W1585924460 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W1592562860 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W1721573527 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W2024297644 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W2111428684 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W2525523995 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W2891773527 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W310151179 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W580929237 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W646760490 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W78067541 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W795071672 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W897994901 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W2582518597 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W2607004740 @default.
• W226163581 hasRelatedWork W3121305080 @default.
• W226163581 hasVolume "112" @default.
• W226163581 isParatext "false" @default.
• W226163581 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W226163581 magId "226163581" @default.
• W226163581 workType "article" @default.