Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Charles W. Padgett v. Buxton-Smith Mercantile Company and Floyd R. Ehrmann, 283 F.2d 597, 10th Cir. (1960)
Charles W. Padgett v. Buxton-Smith Mercantile Company and Floyd R. Ehrmann, 283 F.2d 597, 10th Cir. (1960)
2d 597
In selecting names to go into the box, the first task is to compile a list of
individuals residing in the district who may be available for jury duty. The
source of such names varies from district to district. In some federal districts,
city or telephone directories, state jury lists, poll books, tax records and other
like media are employed. In New Mexico and other districts the procedure is to
obtain from key persons located throughout the state lists of individuals whom
they suggest for jury service. Commonly, as in New Mexico, questionnaires are
then sent to the individuals whose names have been obtained from the source
used. These are examined by the clerk of the court and the jury commissioner
and an agreed number are selected for inclusion within the group that makes up
the box from which the panels are drawn.
3
Plaintiff does not complain of the manner in which the panel was drawn from
the box or of the procedure followed in drawing prospective jurors for his case
from the panel. Instead, he first attacks the source of the names used in filling
up the box and, second, the selection of names from that source for inclusion in
the box.
The clerk of the court testified that in November, 1959, he and the jury
commissioner examined between 3,000 and 4,000 questionnaires which had
been returned by persons whose names had been obtained from key men living
at various points in the state. From this total, 810 names were put in the box. A
panel of 50 was then drawn from the box for the jury term in which the instant
case was tried. The reduction of this number by court-granted excuses required
two additional drawings of 8 names each to fill out the panel.
In Windom v. United States, 10 Cir., 260 F.2d 384, we approved the New
Mexico system of the use of key men as a source of the names of individuals to
whom questionnaires were sent. While we are asked to re-examine that
decision, we decline to do so. Neither statutory nor case-made law requires the
use of any particular source of names so long as there is no systematic exclusion
of the members of any race, creed, social or economic group. The difficulty
with the use of the key-men system is that on occasion it arouses attacks such as
here made. At the same time problems are presented by the use of other
sources. When poll lists are employed, there is an exclusion of those who do
not vote. Likewise, the use of the tax rolls eliminates those who pay no taxes
and telephone directories leave out those who have no telephones. State jury
lists are only as good as the state method of selection. Perhaps the district
courts would be wise to utilize a combination of several sources.
The burden of showing the exclusion of a class lies on him who challenges the
array.2 In Windom v. United States, supra, we said that a court should not be
required to undertake an investigation of a jury panel until it is suspect. The
same rule applies to the array.
To sustain his position the plaintiff filed a sworn statement giving his analysis
of the occupations of the individuals on the panel and called a statistician who
testified from public documents as to the relative proportions of various
economic groups in New Mexico. From such showing plaintiff asserts that
there was no representation on the panel of his economic group and, hence, the
entire array is suspect. The conclusion does not follow. A blind drawing of 66
names from a box containing 810 names not surprisingly may fail to include
members of a certain group. Yet this does not detract from the propriety and
fairness of the system used. This is not a case like Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S.
559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244, in which different colored slips were used for
the members of two groups.
8
10
The clerk of the court was examined at length as to the selection of the key
men. He selected such men for half of the state and the jury commissioner,
Albert K. Mitchell, selected the remainder. The letter of instructions to the key
men contained the following:
11
"We request your assistance in the preparation of a jury list for this court. We
desire the names of ------- men and women residing in your county who would
make good jurors, it being our desire to compile a jury list composed of good
citizens from the several counties of the State representing a cross-section of
the population, fairly apportioned as to sex and as to racial, economic and social
groups."
12
13
Plaintiff complains of the fact that he did not get the names of the key men.
When he had the clerk on the stand he did not ask him the names of the key
men whom he, the clerk, had selected. Plaintiff argues that the court erred in
refusing to order the attendance of the jury commissioner but such argument is
15
Affirmed.
Notes:
1
Windom v. United States, supra, at page 385; Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S.
497, 503, 69 S.Ct. 201, 93 L.Ed. 187, rehearing denied 336 U.S. 907, 69 S.Ct.
488, 93 L.Ed. 1072
See Windom v. United States, supra, 260 F.2d at page 385, and Bary v. United
States, supra, 248 F.2d at page 206, and cases there cited