United States v. Rudolph Weaver

How courts have described this case

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

• “Noting that proof of a fair cross-section claim is a ‘mathematical exercise, and must be supported by statistical evidence”
• finding that blacks are “sufficiently numerous and distinct from others in the population” to satisfy the first prong of the Duren test (citing Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 495 (1977))
• noting, in dictum, that “the Jencks Act only applies to evidence in the possession of the United States, and not state authorities”
• expressing reservations about a disparity as to African-Americans of 3.07% (population) vs. 1.84% (venirepersons) and as to Hispanic-Americans of 0.97% (population) vs. 0.26% (venirepersons)
• considering comparative disparities of 40.01% and even 72.98% to be “of questionable probative value” due to particularly small population percentages of 3.07% and 0.97%, respectively
• noting the inquiry is “at least in part, a mathematical exercise, and must be supported by statistical evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).