I would like you to understand that we consider Mr. Keller an outstanding Clerk and I think you will find that this opinion is borne out by the opinion of the Administrative Office. He is a graduate of Lafayette College (1928) and Harvard Law School (1931). He was admitted to the Bar here in New Jersey in 1933. He entered the service of the Clerk's Office in 1941, left in 1942 to enter the Army and upon his discharge after World War II in 1946, at our request, he returned to the Clerk's Office where he has remained ever since, becoming the Chief Clerk in 1956.

He has now written to me, under date of July 7th, 1966, and I think his remarks regarding the bill are extremely cogent and I enclose herewith his letter to me retaining a copy for my files. I also enclose herewith a copy of Mr. Keller's letter to the two United States Jury Commisisoners in this District, under date of April 1st, 1965. I, likewise, enclose Mr. Keller's report to the District Judges regarding this question under date of September 7th, 1962, to which he has attached two different charts regarding the solicitation of various clubs and organizations for furnishing names for jury service in addition to the polling lists; likewise, there is attached a letter by the former Jury Commissioners to the prospective jurors, and you may notice that at that time one of the Jury Commissioners was Marie H. Katzenbach, the mother of the present Attorney General; and, likewise, he has attached a form of questionnaire as to qualification for jury service which we use.

There is only one additional thing that I would like to add and that is in reference to the report that Mr. Keller made to the Judges under date of September 7th, 1962. You will notice that Mr. Keller compiled a list of approximately 1300 clubs and associations out of the yellow pages of the twenty-seven. telephone books covering the District of New Jersey. Mr. Keller, in conjunction with myself, checked the list striking therefrom such organizations as health clubs, nudist camps, etc.; but, at the same time, trying to keep in all proper and legitimate clubs such as the Red Cross, Labor Unions, various Service Clubs, etc.

I am still engaged in trials and I feel that Mr. Keller has made an excellent survey and furnished you with sufficient material to give you an idea of how we are attempting to operate in this District; on the other hand, I recognize that the duty is mine as the Chief Judge and if you have any additional questions you wish to ask or any additional information you need, please do not hesitate to write.

Trusting this finds you well, I am,
Sincerely yours,

Hon. THOMAS M. MADDEN,

Chief Judge, U.S. District Court,
Federal Building, Camden, N.J.

THOMAS M. MADDEN..

U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY,

Trenton, N.J., July 7, 1966.

DEAR JUDGE MADDEN: Reference is made to the material you sent me and Senator Ervin's letter on the jury portion of the Civil Rights Bill.

As to our present method, I think it can best be covered by the enclosed copy of letter I wrote to our commissioners on April 1, 1965, and copy of the report I submitted to the Court on September 7, 1962 after we supplemented our jury pool from registration lists with members of clubs, associations, etc. I also enclose a copy of the questionnnaire we use. It is a standard form distributed by the Administrative Office.

As for the provisions of the Bill relating to jurors, I have the following comments:

Section 1863 (a)-in addition to $16 per day, a jury commissioner should' be allowed traveling expenses of 10¢ per mile if he resides outside the city where he is performing his duties.

Section 1864 (a) provides that names should be kept in a "master jury wheel": In each of our three places of holding court-Camden, Newark and Trenton-. seven of the State's 21 counties are used as the source of prosective jurors. When qualified, their names, addresses and occupations are placed on small cards which are filed in cabinets by counties. This is what each office calls its jury pool. When we need jurors for trials, 500, 1000, 2,000 or 3,000 cards are taken from the jury pool and placed in a wheel from which the required number.

for service are drawn. When taken from the jury pool, an attempt is made to take the same percentage from each county as that county bears to the total number of registered voters in the seven counties. We believe this is added insurance in obtaining a cross-section. In addition, from comments I shall make below, some districts might require a "master jury wheel" the size of a mounted cement mixer which spins on the way to the job site.

Section 1864 (b) requires that the master wheel shall contain at least 1% of voters listed on registration lists; or, if other additional sources are also used pursuant to Section 1864 (a), at least 1% of the total number of persons of voting age. As of November, 1965, there were 3,151,599 registered voters in this district. We would be required to have at least 31,516 names in our combined three wheels. Section 1865 (a) requires that, unless the prospective juror claims a statutory exemption pursuant to Section 1872, he must appear personally at the clerk's office to fill out the questionnaire. Since it can be expected that many of those who appear will not be qualified, it will be necessary to have in excess of 31,516 interviews before we obtain that number of qualified jurors. Section 1864 (f) (2) is a requirement which I believe is impossible to fulfill. Between November 15 and December 31 of each even-numbered year the master wheel must be emptied and refilled. This requires thirty-odd thousand interviews in a six week period in our court.

My suggestion would be that a master jury wheel or jury pool should contain a minimum of 1,000 names and that at least 75% of such names be those obtained from voter registration lists. The clerk should be required to continue to add names to the wheel or pool as needed and maintain the minimum number and percentage of those from the registration list.

As to the requirement that a prospective juror appear at the clerk's office to answer the questionnaire, I know of no present or proposed statutory provision that he be compensated for that day. I suggest that whatever is the established fee for serivce and mileage of a juror should also be paid to one required to appear at the clerk's office as a prospective juror.

I do not understand the portion of Section 1866 (a) which provides that if one is found to be exempt or not qualified such determination shall be entered on the alphabetical list of names drawn from the master jury wheel. If a prospective juror is found to be exempt or not qualified, I would assume his name would not go in the wheel nor appear on the list drawn therefrom.

I respectfully suggest that Senator Ervin's Committee call before it some of the clerks of District Courts. Frankly, I do not believe either the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office is sufficiently familiar with the mechanics involved in juror selection and the drawing of panels for trial. I am sure that it is the desire of the Committee that the Bill finally approved is workable within the structure of clerk's offices-many of which are already under-staffed. Sincerely,

MICHAEL KELLER, Jr.,

Clerk. TRENTON, N.J., April 1, 1965.

Mr. FRANK J. CODEY, Jr.,

U.S. Jury Commissioner,

Montclair, N.J.

Mr. SIMEON F. Moss,

U.S. Jury Commissioner,

Princeton, N.J.

DEAR COMMISSIONERS: Although our method of selecting and qualifying jurors was explained to each of you when you were appointed, I believe it advisable to make a record of such procedures in the event there is ever a challenge made by an attorney to our method of selection and qualification.

The Jury Commissioner and the Clerk are charged with obtaining jurors which represent a cross-section of the community, without reference to party affiliation and without disqualification on account of race, color or creed. This does not mean that every jury must contain representatives of all economic, social, religious, political and geographical groups of the community-fre quently this would be impossible. It does mean jurors shall be selected without systematic and intentional exclusion of any of these groups. There is one exclusion we make pursuant to an order of our court. So as not to incur unnecessary expense or unduly burden persons with jury service, we exclude persons who reside more than approximately 40 miles from the place of holding court.

The Court determined that the best source to obtain jurors which would meet the tests set up by the Courts would be the county voter registration lists; and that is our primary source of obtaining names-plus occasional solicitation of clubs and organizations—plus names furnished by the Jury Commissioners. Each of our three offices is serviced by seven counties and each uses the lists from its seven counties. Every 10th name is checked off and standard form questionnaires sent to those persons, Enclosed is a form of the questionnaire and the transmittal letter. When the questionnaire is returned, it is examined by the deputy assigned in each office to this duty to determine whether the prospective juror is legally qualified and not subject to any rule or law of exclusion. Even if a rule or law provides that a certain person is exempt from service, our office accepts the juror-whether the juror will claim the exemption is for the juror to decide if called for service. Wheel cards are prepared for those accepted and placed in our three master pools for use when a panel is to be selected.

Up to this point, Commissioners have never cared to participate in the selection and qualification of jurors. It has been considered a ministerial act and the Commissioners have delegated the duties to my office. However, I wish to make it clear that you may participate in the above duties any time you wish to do so.

You are more familiar with the selection of panels from master pools in which you participate with one of our deputies. I do not believe there is anything to add to what your experience already has taught you. However, if you believe our system in this connection can be improved we are always happy to receive suggestions.

We are always eager to receive from you names of prospective jurors to whom to send questionnaires and it is urged that you do so,

Sincerely yours,

MICHAEL KELLER, Jr., Clerk. U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, September 7, 1962.

REPORT ON SELECTION OF JURORS

On September 25, 1961, I submitted a report to the Court to the following effect:

1. At a conference of the judges on February 10, 1955, (see page 133 of conference minutes), it was determined that the sources for obtaining names of prospective jurors, to whom qualifying questionnaires would be sent, should be: (a) County voter registration lists, (b) Various types of clubs and associations. 2. At that time over one hundred clubs, etc., were solicited for names at Newark and a few thousand names obtained-the large number being primarily due to one fraternal organization sending in its entire membership list of over 2,000. To a lesser degree, Camden and Trenton did the same.

3. Since that time, voter registration lists have been our only source, except for a few furnished by our two Jury Commissioners.

4. At the time of said report of September 25, 1961, it was estimated that the percentage of names in our jury pool from registration lists was 60% at Newark, 85% at Trenton and almost 100% at Camden.

The reason for making said report was to obtain a direction from the Court in the light of the then recent Hoffa decision in Florida, in which it was held that the exclusive use of registration lists was improper. (Thereafter, two cases in the Southern District of New York held to the contrary.)

At our conference of September 28, 1961, (see page 283 of conference minutes), no determination was made as to the propriety of using registration lists, exclusively; however, I was directed again to supplement the names in our jury pool with names obtained from clubs, etc. From the Yellow Pages of 27 phone books, I compiled a list of approximately 1300 clubs and associations. Copies of such compilation were distributed to the judges. Understandably, the Court did not wish to wade through the list and, at our conference of January 26, 1962, (see page 297 of conference minutes), I was directed to delete inappropriate clubs, etc., and submit my final list to Judge Madden for approval. The final approved list contained 682 clubs, etc., in the following general categories: Veterans Organizations, Fraternal Organizations, NAACP, Women's Clubs, Red Cross, Labor

65-506-66-pt. 221

Unions, Employees' Groups, Boy and Girl Scout Organizations, Y.M. and Y.W.C.A., Y.M. and Y.W.H.A., Community Centers, Citizens and Civic Clubs, Health Organizations (Heart, TB, etc.), Country Clubs, and one catch-all category labeled Miscellaneous. By vicinage, they were located in the following number of cities: Camden-46, Trenton-29, Newark-109.

Judge Madden also approved the form of letter to be sent to the clubs, etc.. being solicited. A copy is attached. Both the list of clubs, etc., and the form of letter were submitted to and approved by our Jury Commissioners. It took some time to obtain their personal signatures and my own to these hundreds of letters and they finally went out last May.

To date, responses from the 682 clubs, etc., is a disappointing 108, or about 16%. The lists received varied from one name to 271. Questionnaires were sent to each name furnished. The indiivdual responses were much better-about 80%. This is a far better response than when we send questionnaires to persons who appear on registration lists; however, the reason is that many of the clubs, etc., sent in lists of names of those who had agreed that their names appear thereon. In short, we have received 2356 names of prospective jurors, of whom 1909 returned completed questionnaires. Of the latter number, we found qualified and accepted 1337, or 70%, 300 at Camden, 800 at Newark and 237 at Trenton. At least 25% were not found qualified or accepted for obvious reasons-doctors, lawyers, over age, chronic illness, etc. The other 5% represented those who requested that they be excused and it was apparent that jury service would be burdensome. It is pointed out that many were qualified and accepted though they requested to be excused for the many reasons of inconvenience with which you are familiar. These are within the province of the Court and such judgment is not to be exercised by the Clerk, or the Jury Commissioners. It should be pointed out that our Jury Commissioners took no part in this operation other than signing the letters. They have delegated to my office the mechanics of obtaining jurors from all sources. Of course, we have always obtained their consent to the sources used. Since this type of operation results in the greatest response in the beginning, the effect of responses received hereafter will be minimal on the over-all picture. For my own information, I decided to make a detailed study of the results and have attached copies of such study. Respectfully submitted.

MICHAEL KELLER, Jr., Clerk.