## Facts

- William Jefferson Walker, an Arizona state prisoner, was convicted by a jury in Pima County Superior Court on September 30, 1983, of aggravated assault and leaving the scene of an accident, and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
- Walker’s habeas challenge targeted jury selection rather than trial evidence, alleging that the jury venire excluded all persons whose surnames began with W, X, Y, or Z.
- Walker claimed the exclusion violated (1) the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
- To support treating W–Z surnames as a distinctive group, Walker relied on a study asserting greater incidence of “alphabetic neurosis” among persons with surnames beginning with later letters.
- Arizona courts denied post-conviction relief, concluding that persons with surnames beginning with W–Z were not a constitutionally cognizable group.
- Walker filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in federal district court; the petition was summarily denied, and Walker appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged exclusion of persons with surnames beginning with W–Z from the jury venire violates the Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section requirement by systematically excluding a “distinctive group.”
2. Whether the same alleged exclusion violates the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause by excluding a constitutionally cognizable class from jury service.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary denial of Walker’s § 2254 petition.
- The court held that persons whose surnames begin with W–Z are not a “distinctive group” for Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section analysis.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim for the same threshold reason: the surname-based category was not a cognizable class for jury-selection purposes.
- Because the proposed group failed the distinctiveness requirement, the court did not reach further questions such as degree of underrepresentation or systematic exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- A Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim requires, as a threshold matter, identification of a “distinctive group” in the community that has been excluded from the venire.
- A “distinctive group” is characterized by a definite composition and shared attitudes, experiences, or community interests such that exclusion results in inadequate representation.
- Alphabetically defined surname categories, without recognized social or demographic distinctiveness, do not constitute a distinctive group for fair-cross-section purposes.
- Equal protection challenges to jury-venire composition likewise fail absent a recognizable, constitutionally cognizable class as the object of exclusion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief because individuals defined solely by surnames beginning with W–Z are not a constitutionally cognizable group; therefore, their alleged exclusion from a jury venire does not establish a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section violation or an equal protection violation.


Walker v. Goldsmith, 902 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1990)