583 F.Supp.3d 1037
N.D. Ohio2022Background
- Margaret Cole was indicted on federal charges; the court set a February 9, 2022 trial date and planned to summon only CDC-defined “fully vaccinated” jurors.
- Cole moved to object/stay, arguing the Sixth Amendment and the Jury Selection and Service Act prohibit excluding unvaccinated jurors; the government opposed.
- The court found high community COVID transmission and cited CDC evidence that vaccination reduces infection, severe illness, and quarantine needs.
- The court analyzed the fair-cross-section test from Duren and precedent on what constitutes a "distinctive" group.
- The court concluded (1) unvaccinated persons are not a distinctive group, (2) Cole failed to show systematic underrepresentation, and (3) even if a prima facie violation existed, excluding unvaccinated jurors serves a significant state interest and is permissible under the Act because unvaccinated jurors could disrupt proceedings.
- The court overruled Cole’s objections and denied her motion to stay the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding unvaccinated jurors violates the Sixth Amendment fair cross-section requirement | Exclusion is constitutional because unvaccinated are not a protected/distinctive group and public-health interests justify exclusion | Excluding unvaccinated jurors systematically excludes a group and deprives Cole of a fair cross-section | Court: No Sixth Amendment violation; unvaccinated are not a distinctive group and Cole failed Duren showing |
| Whether vaccination status constitutes a "distinctive group" | Vaccination status is not immutable and is not comparable to race/gender; many change vaccination status | Vaccination status correlates with beliefs/demographics and may operate as a proxy for protected groups | Court: Vaccination status is not a distinctive group; shared beliefs alone insufficient |
| Whether there is systematic underrepresentation of a distinctive group in jury venires | N/A (government notes lack of evidence of systematic exclusion) | Cole points to racial disparities in vaccination to argue disparate impact | Court: Cole produced insufficient, incomplete data; no Duren second/third-prong showing |
| Whether the Jury Selection and Service Act permits excluding jurors likely to disrupt proceedings | Excluding unvaccinated jurors is permitted because their higher infection/quarantine risk would likely disrupt trial | Exclusion is not authorized by the Act and unlawfully narrows the jury pool | Court: Act allows exclusion of jurors likely to disrupt; higher infection/quarantine risk makes exclusion permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (establishes the three‑part fair cross‑section prima facie test)
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986) (shared beliefs do not necessarily create a distinctive group for fair‑cross‑section purposes)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) (fair cross‑section principle and civic participation rationale)
- Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (recognizing government interest in stemming COVID‑19 spread)