United States v. Hernandez-Estrada, No. 11-50417 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was indicted for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. At issue on appeal was whether the district court violated the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA) or the Constitution in compiling its 2009 master jury wheel. The court held that, although the district court departed from the requirements of the JSSA in several respects, the court found no reversible error in the underlying conviction. Despite the court's conclusion, the court cautioned the district court to take note of the statutory violations the court identified and amend the district court's practice in the future. Because no JSSA violation warranted relief and there was no constitutional violation, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed an illegal reentry conviction in a case in which the defendant argued that in compiling its 2009 master jury wheel, the Southern District of California violated the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 and the Constitution. Applying the absolute disparity rule, the panel held that because a juror source list consisting only of registered voters did not substantially underrepresent African-Americans or Hispanics in the community, the Southern District’s failure to supplement that list did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The panel also held that because the defendant neither alleged nor showed discriminatory intent, there was no Fifth Amendment equal-protection violation. The panel wrote that the Southern District Clerk’s Office should not automatically disqualify individuals who express doubt about their English skills, and should not put off preparing statistical jury-representativeness forms required by the Act, but that these technical violations did not frustrate the Act’s goals and do not warrant merits relief in this case. The panel held that the Southern District’s dismissal of prospective jurors based solely on a “no” answer to a question whether jurors “read, write, speak and understand the English language” was not a substantial violation of the Act because it did not interfere with the Act’s key goals of randomness and objectivity. The panel also held that the defendant did not demonstrate that the Southern District substantially departed from the requirements of the Act by failing to return questionnaires to prospective jurors who failed to answer questions on race and/or ethnicity. The panel cautioned the Southern District to take note of the statutory violations identified and amend its practices in the future. Chief Judge Kozinski (joined by Judge Watford) concurred without enthusiasm because the rule the panel is bound to apply – i.e., measuring disparity for fair cross section purposes by looking at absolute disparity, and accepting up to 7.7% of the total jury pool as a permissible deviation – is clearly wrong.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 9, 2013.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 30, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.