midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
884 F. Supp. 2d 88
S.D.N.Y.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Walsh seeks court order compelling disclosure of jury selection documents relating to grand jury selection.
  • Walsh intends to evaluate viability of a Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1867(a) motion arguing a fair cross-section violation.
  • SDNY Amended Jury Plan allows opt-out from grand jury service for those over seventy; Walsh contends this under-represents that group.
  • Plan involves steps: random Master Jury Wheels, qualification from questionnaires, and summoning from Qualified Wheel.
  • Second-step exemptions include opt-out for persons over seventy; rationale cites undue hardship and inconvenience.
  • Court denies Walsh’s request, holding disclosure unnecessary and likely unwarranted under Duren’s framework.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Walsh is entitled to access jury-selection records. Walsh: records needed to support § 1867(a) motion. Government: disclosure not required and would delay proceedings. Access denied
Whether the opt-out provision affects a prima facie fair-cross-section claim under Duren. Walsh: data may show under-representation of >70s. Under-representation would still require a prima facie showing of a distinctive group. No likelihood of establishing distinctive-group status
Whether the SDNY Amended Jury Plan is sufficiently authorized and non-exclusionary for purposes of cross-section analysis. Walsh: plan creates potential bias and warrants inspection. Plan authorized, less exclusionary than prior practice, and publicly rational. Plan deemed permissible; does not mandate disclosure

Key Cases Cited

  • Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (establishes three-part prima facie test for fair-cross-section claim)
  • Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1990) (permits absence of a distinctive group where over-70 exemption is informal)
  • Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) (cross-section requirement for juries is essential to Sixth Amendment right)
  • U.S. v. Guzman, 337 F.Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (illustrates variability within age groups and lack of distinctive group)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Walsh
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Aug 6, 2012
Citations: 884 F. Supp. 2d 88; 2012 WL 3229197; 11 Cr. 1091; No. 11 Cr. 1091(VM)
Docket Number: No. 11 Cr. 1091(VM)
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
Log In