Ambrose v. Booker
781 F. Supp. 2d 532
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Ambrose was convicted in Kent County Circuit Court in 2001 of two armed robberies, one carjacking, and one felony-firearm, with consecutive sentences on the felony-firearm count.
- Petitioner claimed his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section was violated due to a computer glitch that underrepresented minorities in the jury venire.
- Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed July 25, 2006; district court appointed counsel and later ordered an evidentiary hearing on the cross-section claim.
- Judge Binder held an evidentiary hearing and concluded Petitioner established a prima facie fair-cross-section violation under the Duren framework.
- Respondent objected on procedural-default grounds and on the sufficiency of the second and third elements; the magistrate judge’s findings were adopted over the objections.
- The court concluded Petitioner is conditionally granted a writ of habeas corpus, requiring release unless the state brings Petitioner to trial within 180 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default viability | Ambrose argues cause and prejudice excuse default. | Ambrose failed to preserve claim per state rule requiring pretrial objection. | Not defaulted; cause shown; overruled respondent's default objection. |
| Second element of prima facie fair-cross-section | Comparative disparity shows underrepresentation of African Americans. | Statistics from Smith and similar cases do not prove underrepresentation. | Second element met; Kent County underrepresentation supported by comparative disparity. |
| Third element of prima facie fair-cross-section | Computer glitch caused systematic exclusion of a distinctive group. | Error was class-neutral, not tied to a protected group. | Systematic exclusion shown; third element satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (establishes fair-cross-section framework)
- Smith v. Berghuis, 543 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2008) (adopts comparative disparity approach; later reversed on other grounds)
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) (structural error when cross-section violated)
- Rogers v. United States, 73 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 1996) (comparative disparity supports second element)
- United States v. Buchanan, 213 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 2000) (disparity statistics discussed in comparison)
- People v. Bryant, 289 Mich. App. 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (Michigan applying comparative disparity approach to Kent County glitch)