United States v. John Smith, II
23-30036
9th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- John Pearl Smith II appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a superseding indictment in the District of Alaska.
- Smith argued that the District failed to implement a required geographic proration formula for jury selection under its 2015 Jury Plan.
- Smith claimed this failure deprived him of a fair-cross-section grand jury, particularly underrepresenting African American and American Indian/Alaska Native jurors.
- The challenge is reviewed independently and non-deferentially as to the composition of grand and petit juries under relevant Ninth Circuit precedent.
- The incorrect formula was acknowledged by the District and slated for correction, but the practical effect on jury demographic composition was disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to use the correct jury proration formula violated fair-cross-section right | Smith: The formula led to fewer minority and more white jurors, violating the fair-cross-section requirement | Government: No legally significant underrepresentation; impact on jury demographics was marginal | Court affirmed denial; no legal significance found |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (prima facie Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section challenge standard)
- United States v. Miller, 771 F.2d 1219 (applies Duren to federal jury challenges)
- United States v. Esquivel, 88 F.3d 722 (statistical proof needed for underrepresentation)
- United States v. Hernandez-Estrada, 749 F.3d 1154 (clarifies legal vs. statistical significance in jury challenges)
- United States v. Kleifgen, 557 F.2d 1293 (marginal demographic impact is insufficient for fair-cross-section violation)