Layton

United States v. Layton

Good Law
632 F. Supp. 176·1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30441
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 1986CR-80-0416 RFPCalifornia1,102 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peckham, J.

ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Defendant brings this motion for an order directing the clerk of the court to release to defendant: (1) the hardship responses returned by jurors for all cases that have used such a questionnaire; (2) the initial juror qualification questionnaire completed by those jurors who later also filled out a hardship questionnaire; and (3) the number of questionnaires mailed out and the number of hardship excuses granted in each case. Defendant asks for this information in order to challenge the use of hardship questionnaries to prescreen potential jurors for lengthy trials.

This court denies defendant’s motion, because the Jury Selection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq., does not allow defendants to challenge, in the abstract, minor innovations in jury selection procedures. Once defendant’s jury panel has been selected, defendant will have access to similar information relevant to its selection should he wish to challenge its composition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 16, 1985, counsel in this case were before this court for a preliminary pretrial conference. One purpose of that conference was to determine what jury selection procedures would be used in light of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.