## Facts

- Aldridge Currie, an African-American defendant, was tried by jury and convicted of second degree murder, attempted robbery, and felon-in-possession of a firearm, with firearm-use enhancements.
- Before trial, Currie moved to quash the county’s master jury list and the jury venire from which his jury would be selected.
- Currie asserted African-Americans were significantly underrepresented in the master jury list and in the venire, violating the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement and the parallel protection in article I, section 16 of the California Constitution.
- In support, Currie offered statistical comparisons between the county’s general population demographics and African-American representation in the master list and venire.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Currie had not made a prima facie showing of unconstitutional underrepresentation.
- Currie appealed, challenging the denial of his fair-cross-section motion (among other claims).

## Issues

1. Whether Currie established a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement under *Duren v. Missouri* and the California Constitution based on asserted underrepresentation of African-Americans in the master jury list and jury venire.
2. Whether Currie’s statistical showing demonstrated that African-American representation was not fair and reasonable in relation to community numbers.
3. Whether Currie showed any underrepresentation was caused by systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held Currie failed to establish a prima facie fair-cross-section violation under *Duren*.
- The court concluded Currie’s statistical showing did not adequately demonstrate constitutionally significant underrepresentation.
- The court further held Currie did not show the asserted underrepresentation resulted from systematic exclusion attributable to the jury-selection mechanism.
- Because Currie did not meet his prima facie burden, the state was not required to justify the jury-selection procedures.

## Legal Principles

- A prima facie fair-cross-section claim requires proof that: (1) the excluded group is “distinctive”; (2) its representation in jury venires is not fair and reasonable in relation to its presence in the community; and (3) the underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process.
- Statistical disparity alone does not establish a violation absent a showing that the disparity is substantial and linked to a consistent, system-caused effect.
- Systematic exclusion requires evidence that some feature of the jury-selection process itself, as structured or administered, regularly produces the underrepresentation.
- Reliance on commonly used, facially neutral source lists (such as voter registration or driver’s license lists) is generally permissible unless the defendant shows those procedures operate in a system-caused manner to exclude a distinctive group.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Currie’s convictions, ruling that his evidence did not satisfy *Duren*’s prima facie requirements because it did not show constitutionally significant underrepresentation of African-Americans or that any disparity was caused by systematic exclusion in the county’s jury-selection process.


People v. Currie, 87 Cal. App. 4th 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)