Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
12-23-2009
Abstract
Amici curiae are leading social scientists, statisticians, and law professors actively engaged in social scientific research focused on the criminal justice system. Included among amici are authors of authoritative books and articles on statistics and the application of statistics in social science. Amici have written and conducted studies on a broad range of topics concerning the criminal justice and jury systems. Many amici are members and leaders of associations in their fields, including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the American Society of Criminology.
Amici curiae submit this brief to evaluate the various proposed methods for measuring underrepresentation in juror pools and to provide information and analysis about the underlying statistical issues presented in this case. Amici suggest adoption of the comparative disparity method because it provides a quantitative measure of the degree or extent of underrepresentation that is both scientifically valid and consistent with the constitutional principle of cross-sectionality.
In this case, the Michigan Supreme Court endorsed the use of multiple methods-including absolute disparity, comparative disparity, and statistical significance-to measure the underrepresentation of African Americans in the Kent County Circuit Court jury pool. While amici agree with the Michigan Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit that comparative disparity is a proper method for measuring the degree of underrepresentation in the jury pool, amici believe that absolute disparity is an inappropriate and misleading measure of underrepresentation.
Of particular concern to amici is the standard suggested by Petitioner, and accepted by some courts, as the proper and exclusive method for evaluating Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claims: a blanket rule that no underrepresentation can be challenged unless it presents an absolute disparity of greater than 10 percent between the composition of the population and the jury pool. Amici curiae oppose this proposed new rule on statistical and constitutional grounds, and present here demographic data showing that adoption of the greater than 10 percent absolute disparity standard would deny the faircross- section guarantee to the vast majority of Americans and in the vast majority of American courts, and would seriously undermine the integrity and legitimacy of our judicial system.
Recommended Citation
Gross, Samuel R., "Berghuis v. Smith: Brief for Social Scientists, Statisticians, and Law Professors, Jeffrey Fagan, et al., as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent" (2009). Appellate Briefs. 24.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/24
Comments
Amicus: Fagan, Professor Jeffrey; Abramson, Professor Jeffrey B.; Baldus, Professor David C.; Beveridge, Professor Andrew A.; Blume, Professor John H.; Blumsteln, Professor Alfred; Brame, Professor Robert W.; Brooks, Professor Richard; Denno, Deborah W.; Diamond, Professor Shari Seidman; Ellsworth, Professor Phoede C.; Epstein, Professor David; Goff, Professor Phillip Atiba; Gross, Professor Samuel R.; Harcourt, Professor Bernard E.; Kadane, Professor Joseph B.; Lehoczky, Professor John P.; Levin, Professor Bruce; Lynch, Professor Mona; Monahan, Professor John T.; Paternoster, Professor Raymond; Piquero, Professor Alex; Radelet, Professor Michael L.; Rosenfeld, Professor Richard; Sommers, Professor Samuel R.; Winship, Professor Christopher; Zimring, Professor Franklin E.