To prevail on a claim that a panel of jurors does not include a "fair cross section" of the community, a defendant must prove the underrepresentation of a particular group in the pool of jurors resulted from the systemic exclusion of that particular group. The defendant, Darnell Moore, objected to the composition of the panel of jurors and argued that African-Americans were systemically underrepresented, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a panel that represents a "fair cross section" of the community. Only four of 117 potential jurors appeared to be African-American or Hispanic. One of the jurors was an African-American woman. None of the potential jurors were African-American men. Jurors are recruited from lists kept by the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Revenue Services, the Department of Labor and the Registrar of Voters. Representatives of the Judicial Branch, the Department of Revenue Services, the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles testified about the selection process. Witnesses credibly testified that no information was maintained about racial or ethnic composition of potential jurors. To prevail on a claim that a panel of jurors does not include a "fair cross section" of the community, a defendant must prove: 1.) the group that allegedly is excluded is distinctive; 2.) representation of the group in the pool of jurors is unfair in relation to the number of members in the community; and 3.) the underrepresentation was caused by systemic exclusion of that particular group of individuals during jury selection. The defendant failed to persuade the court that the State of Connecticut possesses the duty to maintain information about how potential jurors identify themselves from a racial perspective. The defendant admitted that he did not prove the state systemically excludes African-American men from the process of being selected to juries. The court found that the defendant failed to prove underrepresentation was caused by systemic exclusion of a particular group of individuals. The defendant also failed to prove discriminatory intent, as required to prevail on an equal-protection claim. The court denied the defendant's objection to the racial composition of the panel of jurors.

VIEW FULL CASE