United States v. Salvador Hernandez-Estrada
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8139
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hernandez-Estrada was indicted for a deported alien found in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and challenged the Southern District of California's jury selection procedures.
- Hernandez argued the district used only voter registration lists, failed to supplement with other sources, and used outdated English-proficiency text that misdisqualified jurors.
- The district court acknowledged flaws but held they did not amount to constitutional or substantial Jury Selection Act violations, and Hernandez was convicted.
- On en banc review, the court overruled prior exclusive use of the absolute disparity test and permitted multiple statistical methods to assess fair cross-section and equal protection claims.
- The court held that Hernandez failed to prove a prima facie case under Duren’s third prong (systematic exclusion) and thus affirmed the conviction on those grounds.
- The decision preserves district courts’ discretion to apply various analytic methods, while requiring that statistical results be weighed for legal significance against the actual jury pool.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute disparity is the sole valid test for fair cross-section claims | Hernandez favored multiple tests beyond absolute disparity | Hernandez argued for maintaining absolute disparity as controlling | Not upheld; court abandons exclusive reliance on absolute disparity |
| Whether the district court erred in evaluating Duren's second prong | Underrepresentation shown by Fisher’s Exact/test supports violation | Absolute disparity alone is insufficient to prove underrepresentation | Court accepts multi-method approach; nonetheless underrepresentation here insufficient |
| Whether Hernandez showed Duren's third prong (systematic exclusion) | Evidence linked underrepresentation to the system used | No proof of systematic exclusion; alternatives failed to show causation | Affirmed district court; no prima facie case under Duren's third prong |
| Whether equal protection challenge under Castaneda is proven | Underrepresentation demonstrates discriminatory intent | No evidence of discriminatory intent | No prima facie equal protection violation shown |
| Whether the Jury Selection Act violations were substantial | Several procedural flaws violated the Act | Most flaws are insubstantial technical violations | Affirmed denial of motion to dismiss; violations not substantial |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (establishes the three-part fair cross-section test)
- Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) (jury cross-section right; Supreme Court not prescribing method)
- Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932 (2005) (absolutest disparity threshold; calls 7.7% rule)
- Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541 (1989) (prior Ninth Circuit emphasis on absolute disparity)
- Potter, 552 F.2d 901 (1977) (absolutely disparity favored; caution on other methods)
- Nelson, 718 F.2d 315 (1983) (substantial violations require objective criteria and random selection goals)
- Bearden, 659 F.2d 590 (1981) (quantitative and qualitative aspects of substantial violations)
- Esquivel, 88 F.3d 722 (1996) (discusses standards for underrepresentation and equal protection)
- Rioux, 97 F.3d 648 (1996) (second circuit reliance on absolute disparity and absolute impact)
- Goff, 509 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1975) (absolute impact test considerations)