204 Conn.App. 137
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Defendant Chester J. was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual‑assault offenses and appealed, challenging the venire composition and certain evidentiary rulings.
- Jury selection occurred over three days; defendant objected that African‑Americans and Hispanics were underrepresented and sought access to juror lists/questionnaires; the court held an evidentiary hearing.
- Eight witnesses testified (Judicial Branch jury administrator/IT, AG designee, outreach coordinator, and an expert). The expert used a Bayesian model to impute race for jurors who did not self‑identify and reported whites were overrepresented while African‑Americans and Hispanics appeared underrepresented by some measures.
- Judicial Branch witnesses explained the summons process is race‑neutral, based on randomized lists drawn from DMV, voter rolls, etc.; the AG’s office had not recently enforced civil fines against nonappearing jurors and the Branch had outreach efforts but did not mandate collection/retention of race data.
- Trial court applied Duren and Gibbs, found no evidence of systematic exclusion or discriminatory intent, denied the venire challenge, and excluded certain probate‑related evidence (defendant failed to preserve the broader claim on appeal).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the venire violated Sixth Amendment fair‑cross‑section requirement | Jury selection is race‑neutral and randomized; no systematic exclusion | Venire underrepresents African‑Americans/Hispanics (expert stats) and nonenforcement/outreach failures caused underrepresentation | Denied — no prima facie fair‑cross‑section violation; defendant failed to show systematic exclusion |
| Whether the venire process violated Fourteenth Amendment equal protection | No discriminatory intent; selection procedure not susceptible to abuse | Judicial ‘‘willful institutional blindness’’ and practices (nonenforcement, lack of targeted outreach) produce disparity | Denied — no proof of discriminatory purpose and procedure shown racially neutral |
| Whether appellate court should invoke supervisory authority to require collection/retention of juror demographic data | Statutory scheme makes race reporting optional; court should defer to legislature and task force | Mandate collection/maintenance of demographic data to enable review of underrepresentation claims | Denied — declined to exercise supervisory power; §51‑232(c) makes racial self‑identification discretionary and Moore counsels deference |
| Whether trial court erred excluding probate‑related testimony (bias/motive) | Relevance objection; proffer limited to witness opinion and not preserved | Proffered probate evidence showed victim’s motive to lie about defendant to obtain estate/control | Not reviewed/subsumed — defendant changed/abandoned the trial‑court proffer on appeal; claim not preserved for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (established the three‑part fair cross‑section test)
- State v. Gibbs, 254 Conn. 578 (Connecticut’s explication of fair‑cross‑section and equal‑protection jury tests)
- State v. Moore, 334 Conn. 275 (refusal to mandate demographic collection; deference to statutory scheme and task force)
- Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (equal‑protection framework for jury selection challenges)
- State v. Castonguay, 194 Conn. 416 (rejecting certain statistical measures as dispositive for Sixth Amendment claims)
- State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (scope and purpose of appellate supervisory authority)
- United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir.; systematic underrepresentation focuses on selection process rather than outcome)