773 F. Supp. 2d 715
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Parks petitions for habeas corpus challenging his 2001 Kent County, Michigan, convictions for three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- Petition asserts, among others, that minorities were systemically excluded from the jury venire and that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans.
- Judge Binder held an evidentiary hearing and the magistrate recommended allowing the fair cross-section claim to proceed; the district court initially denied all but that issue.
- A computer error in Kent County’s jury system caused underrepresentation of minorities in 2001–2002, particularly for zip codes with high African-American populations.
- Experts Dr. Rothman and Dr. Stephenson presented statistical evidence of underrepresentation, which the district court found compelling but ultimately did not grant habeas relief on the cross-section issue after independent review.
- The district court ultimately denied the petition, adopting the magistrate’s recommendation against the cross-section claim and holding the petitioner failed to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment fair cross-section requirement under the AEDPA standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether African Americans were systematically excluded from the Kent County venire. | Parks shows systematic exclusion. | Warren contends no systematic exclusion. | Underrepresentation acknowledged but not proven to violate the fair cross-section requirement. |
| Whether the jury venire was representative of the community’s minority population. | Statistical measures show significant underrepresentation. | Hard evidence shows venire reflected community proportion when considering all facts. | Not established that the venire failed to represent the community. |
| Whether procedural default bars review of the cross-section claim. | Cause shown for failure to raise issue earlier. | Default should bar review. | AEDPA review applies; nonetheless, independent de novo review conducted; ultimately petition denied on merits. |
| Whether the state court erred in denying relief on the cross-section claim due to lack of merits. | State court erred; cross-section violation proven. | State court ruling correct. | State court denial not warranted; however habeas relief denied on the merits after de novo review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) (requires a fair cross-section of the community in jury selection)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (three-prong test for fair cross-section claims)
- United States v. Rogers, 73 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 1996) (statistical disparity used to assess underrepresentation)
- People v. Bryant, 289 Mich.App. 260, 796 N.W.2d 135 (2010) (Michigan Court of Appeals finding computer glitch caused underrepresentation)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (AEDPA standard of review and factual determinations in habeas)
- Harrington v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2000) (principle that state court merits adjudication affects review)
- Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2003) (de novo review when state court did not adjudicate merits)
- Smith (People v. Smith), 463 Mich. 199, 615 N.W.2d 1 (2000) (discussed methods of measuring underrepresentation and siphoning)