{
  "id": 1886843,
  "name": "Royse Nathaniel SANDERS, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sanders v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-09-18",
  "docket_number": "CR 89-59",
  "first_page": "25",
  "last_page": "29",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "300 Ark. 25"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "776 S.W.2d 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-32-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875315
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "74"
        },
        {
          "page": "84"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "439 U.S. 357",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11330305
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/439/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756071
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ark. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888373
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "419 U.S. 521",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875315
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "439 U.S. 357",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11330305
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/439/0357-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 390,
    "char_count": 5668,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9028705821288989e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7305120877703681
    },
    "sha256": "63470a81f5cb9e416143ef522a6115b1adb604ed0639ccbadecd0ba659d737a9",
    "simhash": "1:bd129e30ab24d3b8",
    "word_count": 970
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:14:13.062447+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Royse Nathaniel SANDERS, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from the appellant\u2019s conviction of robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He received a sentence of fifty-five years. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant\u2019s objection that the jury panel had no black members. We find no error.\nThe appellant, a black male, was convicted of robbing a white man. At trial, he asserted that the jury panel in Garland County, from which the appellant\u2019s jury was picked, did not contain any black members. Appellant objected to the panel alleging that it would be highly prejudicial to have an all white jury. The trial court denied his challenge to the jury panel and entered an order stating how the jury panel had been selected. According to that order, the jury panel was selected by the use of a computer using random numbers to select names of qualified voters of Garland County. A master list of 2,065 names of qualified voters was prepared by computer. From that list, or the jury wheel, the court drew four hundred names to serve as jurors for the July 1988 term of court. There were four panels with one hundred jurors each. The members of the appellant\u2019s jury were randomly selected from three of the four panels.\nThe selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 521 (1975). But, there is no requirement that the petit jury actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population. Id., see also Mitchell v. State, 299 Ark. 566, 776 S.W.2d 332 (1989). A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to require that the state not deliberately or systematically deny to members of his race the right to participate, as jurors, in the administration of justice. See, e.g., Waters v. State, 271 Ark. 33, 607 S.W.2d 336 (1980). It is the state\u2019s purposeful or deliberate denial to blacks, on account of race, of participation in the administration of justice by selection for jury service that violates the equal protection clause. Id.\nIn order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the appellant must show that (1) the group alleged to be excluded is a \u201cdistinctive\u201d group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in venires from which the juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979). Once the appellant makes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in the jury selection process, the burden shifts to the state to justify its procedure.\nHere, the appellant clearly did not meet his burden of proof. The record is void of any statistical information to show the racial make-up of the community or of the 400 jurors on the four jury panels. See Thomas v. State, 289 Ark. 72, 709 S.W.2d 83 (1986). In addition, the record neither reflects that the appellant ever asserted below that there was a systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury nor indicates he wanted to investigate that such an exclusion occurred. Id.\nFrom our review of the record, there is a lack of proof as to the racial make-up of the community and the jury panels, and in addition, there is simply no showing that the underrepresentation of blacks in the appellant\u2019s jury panel is due to systematic exclusion in the jury selection process. As stated earlier, a computer was used to randomly pick jurors from a current list of registered voters, which did not show the voter\u2019s race. In this regard, Garland County\u2019s jury selection process met the conditions set out in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-32-103 to -105 (1987). As we have previously held, when the jury selection law is followed \u2014 and it was here \u2014 there is no possibility of intentional exclusion of blacks from jury panels. Thomas, 289 Ark. at 74, 709 S.W.2d at 84.\nFor the reasons above, we affirm.\nPurtle, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\nconcurring. I concur only because I do not have time to research this issue in depth. There is something seriously amiss in the jury selection process when not one black person out of a panel of 300 prospective jurors is chosen. Clearly, a prima facie case of discrimination is established under these circumstances. The state should be charged with proving the validity of the panel. We have been furnished no figures reflecting the number of blacks residing in Garland County, although such figures are available from the Census Bureau and other compilations.\nI am aware of the opinion of this court in Thomas v. State, 289 Ark. 72, 709 S.W.2d 83 (1986), and various United States Supreme Court opinions including Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979). Blacks are a distinctive group and are not represented at all on this panel of 300 venires. The state should be required to show some reason for the absence of this distinctive group. A list of all licensed drivers in the county might be more representative than the voter registration list. People who pay personal and real property taxes are listed in each county and could be a source from which jurors are selected. Any system obtaining the result in this case certainly needs further examination.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Becker, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lynley Arnett, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Royse Nathaniel SANDERS, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 89-59\n776 S.W.2d 334\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 18, 1989\nDaniel D. Becker, Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lynley Arnett, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0025-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 55
}