State v. Moore, 334 Conn. 275

Defendant Darnell Moore was convicted of murder after a jury trial in New London and appealed the denial of his motion to strike the voir dire panel as not a fair cross section of the community.
Moore argued the jury panel lacked African-American males and proffered census data showing the percentage of African-Americans in Connecticut and the New London district.
The trial court denied the motion for lack of statistical proof showing underrepresentation of African-American males eligible for jury service; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Moore sought certification from the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing (1) the census data he offered was the only available evidence to support a fair-cross-section claim and (2) the court should require collection/retention of juror racial/demographic data to allow such claims.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, but observed reluctance to use supervisory authority to override General Statutes § 51-232(c) (which makes race/ethnicity disclosure voluntary) and anticipated the issue would be addressed by a Jury Selection Task Force.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether census data on the overall African‑American population is probative of underrepresentation of African‑American males in the jury pool	State: Census figures for the general African‑American population do not prove the relevant subset (jury‑eligible African‑American males) is underrepresented without statistical analysis	Moore: Census data was the only available source and therefore should be probative to show lack of a fair cross section	Appeal dismissed as improvidently granted; court declined to adopt a new rule here and noted the insufficiency of non‑specific census data for the Duren analysis
Whether the court should exercise supervisory authority to require mandatory collection/retention of juror racial/demographic data	State: Supervisory relief unnecessary and in tension with statutory scheme making race/ethnicity disclosure optional	Moore: Mandatory collection and retention is necessary for defendants to prove fair‑cross‑section claims	Court declined broad supervisory intervention given § 51‑232(c); suggested the Jury Selection Task Force consider policy/rule/legislative changes

Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (established the fair‑cross‑section test for jury venires)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes in jury selection)
State v. Gibbs, 254 Conn. 578 (2000) (Connecticut application of fair‑cross‑section principles)
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 328 Conn. 610 (2018) (discussion of appellate disposition by dismissal as improvidently granted)
State v. Moore, 169 Conn. App. 470 (2016) (Appellate Court decision affirming conviction and denial of motion to strike jury panel)