United States v. Frank Vincent Okiyama

Okiyama appeals from his conviction for narcotics offenses ( 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 841), contending that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the grand and petit juries had not been selected in substantial compliance with applicable statutory provisions ( 28 U.S.C. §§ 1864 , 1865, 1866, 1867). We hold that substantial compliance was lacking and that dismissal of the indictment is required despite the absence of any showing that Okiyama suffered prejudice from the deficiencies in the selection processes.

The Clerk’s Office for the District of Guam sent out approximately 600 questionnaires to prospective jurors, of which 437 were returned. No effort was made to follow up those that were not returned. Of the 437 individuals whose forms were returned, apparently three were determined to be unqualified to serve; it is not clear whether the deputy clerk or the district court made this determination. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1865 .) Thirty names were selected by lot as prospective grand jurors, of which twenty-three were chosen to serve. Again, it is unclear whether the deputy clerk or the district court excused six of the…