Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States v. Mary Frances Lopez
United States v. Mary Frances Lopez, 588 F.2d 450 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1979-01-24
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM: Mary Frances Lopez was convicted of the intentional obstruction of correspondence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1702. During her trial, Lopez filed a motion to quash the petit jury panel, contending that the procedures by which jurors were selected impermissibly discriminated against Mexican-Americans. Lopez rested her claims of discrimination squarely on constitutional grounds; she did not contend that the procedures used by the district court violated the Jury Section and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1874. Lopez contends that the district judge erroneously denied her motion. We affirm.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Mary Frances Lopez. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 20 opinions
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ,588 F.2d 450(5th Cir. 1979)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARY FRANCES LOPEZ,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 78-5511.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 24, 1979.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 21, 1979.
Kenneth J. Mighell, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Shirley Baccus-Lobel, Roger McRoberts, Asst. U.S. Attys., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CLARK, RONEY and GEE, Circuit Judges.
[2] In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of jurors, a defendant must show (1) that the group allegedly discriminated against "is one that is a recognizable, distinct class singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied," (2) that the group is underrepresented on jury panels over a significant period of time, and (3) that the selection procedure is not racially neutral or is susceptible to being used as a tool of discrimination.Castaneda v. Partida,430 U.S. 482,494,97 S.Ct. 1272,1280,51 L.Ed.2d 498,510(1977).
[3] The district court in which Lopez was tried uses voter registration lists to select potential jurors, as expressly authorized by § 1863(b)(2). The defendant's claim of discrimination rested entirely on statistics showing that the percentage of Mexican-Americans selected for jury panels was less than the percentage of Mexican-Americans in the entire population for the district. The district judge concluded that this underrepresentation was due solely to the fact that fewer Mexican-Americans register to vote than do other groups within the community.
[4] The evidence Lopez adduced to support her claim of discrimination failed to meet the third requirement set down inCastaneda.Lopez does not contend that the district court clerk discriminated against Mexican-Americans in making up the jury panels from the voting lists, nor does she contend that Mexican-Americans have been discriminated against in the voter registration process.Castanedarequires that a defendant show that the exclusion of a particular minority group from jury service is duePage 452to some form of intentional discrimination; "an official act is not unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact."Castaneda, supra,430 U.S. at 493,97 S.Ct. at 1279,51 L.Ed.2d at 509;see Washington v. Davis,426 U.S. 229,239,96 S.Ct. 2040,2047,48 L.Ed.2d 597,607(1976). A prima facie case of discrimination cannot rest merely on statistics. The fact that an identifiable minority group votes in a proportion lower than the rest of the population and is therefore underrepresented on jury panels presents no constitutional issue.United States v. Arlt,567 F.2d 1295,1297(5th Cir. 1978).
[5] AFFIRMED.
- Rule 18, 5 Cir.;see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩