Louis M. Parker Ford v. Bill Seabold, Warden, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the selection of jurors from a neutral master list, without more, cannot be construed as “systematic exclusion” as defined in Duren merely because the percentage of the venirepersons selected does not precisely mirror the percentage of the group in the entire community
• examining length of time of under-representation and nature of process by which jury lists are composed
• conducting an absolute disparity analysis but relying on the third Duren prong to reject the fair cross- section claim
• comparing the whether Forest has demonstrated that the representation of percentage of women 18 years or older in the community with African-Americans on venires is not “fair and reasonable in the percentage of women in the jury pool
• “selection of jurors from a neutral master list, without more,” can’t “be construed as ‘systematic exclusion’”
• ages 18-29 is not a distinctive group

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).