Non-voters living in rural counties are not distinctive group for purpose of fair cross-section challenge to jury pool

SIXTH AMENDMENT United States v. Green, No. 05-5053, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. January 27, 2006)(N.D. Oklahoma). Appeal of convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and possession of firearm after former conviction of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). HELD: To establish prima facie violation of Sixth Amendment right to jury drawn from fair cross-section of community, defendant must show, among other things, that group alleged to have been excluded is “distinctive” group in community. Members of distinctive group alleged to have been excluded must share “common thread in attitude” or “common experience.” Persons who live in rural counties and do not vote lack “common thread in attitude” or “common experience” sufficient to qualify as distinctive group for Sixth Amendment exclusion analysis. Read the opinion here.