CONCLUSION Since Titles I and II appear as part of a civil rights measure, it would seem inferable that the proponents of those Titles are primarily concerned with the rights of minorities. I am not at all sure that such concern is sufficiently warranted as to justify the sweeping legislation incorporated in the bill. From my own observation from the federal bench in Arkansas, extending over a period of nearly eight years, I have not observed the minority groups in this State have received less than justice at the hands of federal court juries as presently selected. And I have no reason to believe that any real injustices are practiced upon them in the Arkansas State courts, except perhaps in unusual and isolated instances. Nor is it clear that minority groups in Arkansas or elsewhere would really fare any better in the courts, whether State or federal, if present methods of jury selection were abandoned in favor of the method contemplated by the bill. J. SMITH HENLEY, District Judge. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Reply to your letter of July 1, inviting comments on Title I of the above Bill with respect to the manner of jury selection in the federal courts, has been unfortunately delayed on account of attendance upon our Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and an attempted vacation, and pressure of judicial business following such. However, I note from your statement submitted with your letter that Title I has not been and apparently is intended to be submitted to the scrutiny of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the American Law Institute, as the Chief Justice has suggested, and as surely ought to be done. There appears to be ample time for consideration of this matter by your Committee and the whole Committee on the Judiciary. I have discussed this matter quite fully with the Clerk of our court, Mr. J. M. Kroninger, and with my colleague, Judge Raymond E. Plummer, and we do have these comments to make: Indeed we find strenuous objection to some of the provisions of Title I. We have no objection, of course, to the provisions of Secs. 1861 and 1862 of the Bill prohibiting discrimination as to persons serving on grand and petit juries in the District Courts of the United States, although we do not have any such problem in Alaska. We also have no objection to the provisions of Sec. 1863, although we have followed the practice as to the drawing of a jury by the Jury Commissioner and the Clerk provided by the second paragraph of the present Sec. 1864 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. With respect to Sec. 1864 of the Bill, we object to the provision for a master jury wheel in the manner provided by this section and especially as to the provision of subsec. (b) with respect to the minimum requirement of one percentum of the total number of persons listed on the voters' registration lists for the district and the limitation of the names in such wheel of not fewer than two thousand persons. By statute Alaska constitutes one district, with no divisions therein, but we are required to hold court in five place, namely Ketchikan, Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Nome. By reason of the vast area of the district it is absolutely essential that we maintain a jury box in each of those place in the district where we are required to hold court as is provided by subsec. (a) of Sec. 1865, Title 28 U.S.C.A. We find no such provision in the bill. Unless such provision is made it would be necessary to include in the wheel the names of persons residing at Attu, which is 1,714 air miles from our headquarters at Anchorage, or at Barrow, which is 1,070 air miles from Nome, and also it would be necessary to include the names of persons residing in remote areas and on islands from which there is no means of transportation other than by chartering an aircraft. On the other hand, if the provision mentioned as to subsec. (a) of Sec. 1965, Title 28, is included in the Bill by amendment, such would be impossible to comply with in such places as Nome, in which district there are only 600 voters; although we could possibly comply with it at Anchorage. 65-506-66-pt. 2- -56 We also object strenuously to the provision of subsec. (a) of Sec. 1865 of the Bill with respect to summoning all persons whose names are drawn from the master jury wheel to appear before the Clerk and fill out a juror qualification form to be prescribed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the reason that this would put an impossible burden on both the jurors summoned and the office of the Clerk and would be an unnecessary expense to the government to bring persons in from remote areas to ascertain if they are qualified. We do send out a jury questionnaire but make no mention of race or religion, and certainly agree that any such information should not be requested. We also question the provisions of Sec. 1866 of the Bill to the effect that the Jury Commissioner shall determine solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form or the returned summons whether or not a person is qualified for or exempt from jury service, for the reason that we feel that the jury, when impanelled, may still be examined briefly by the court or Clerk as to their qualifications, which is our practice. We also question the provisions as to Sec. 1867 of the Bill with reference to challenging jurors at the time of trial in both criminal and civil cases as to compliance with the selection procedures provided by the Bill, which we think would be most burdensome on the court. Mr. Kroninger has submitted to me a memorandum covering the method of jury selection in this court which we believe fully complies with the provisions of Secs. 1861 through 1867 of Title 28, together with a form of questionnaire submitted to prospective jurors and a form of letter sent therewith, which may be of interest to your Committee and which I will enclose. Finally, we have no complaint as to the provisions of the present statute governing the manner of selection of jurors in our court and have never found any difficulty with compliance with such statute. We make no comment with respect to Title II except to question, as your Com mittee apparently does, the right of the Congress of the United States to govern the manner of selection of grand and petit juries in the state courts. I am sending copies of this letter and enclosures to our Senators E. L. Bartlett and Ernest Gruening, and to our Representative Ralph J. Rivers, of Alaska. Very truly yours, WALTER H. HODGE, Chief Judge. AUGUST 1, 1966. Memorandum To: Judge Walter H. Hodge. From: J. M. Kroninger, Clerk. Subject: Jury Selection Method. We have a jury commission consisting of the clerk of court and a jury commissioner at each place of holding court, Anchorage, Nome, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan. Separate jury boxes are maintained at each of the above places of holding court. After each General Election, as soon as the list of voters is received from the State Election Supervisor, the jury commission at each place of holding court selects at random the names of from 800 to 1,200 persons voting at the last general election. The names selected at Nome, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan are limited to those residing in a 50 mile radius of the place of holding court and at Anchorage to those places within the area that are accessible by highway. railroad or scheduled air service, but excluding the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan Peninsula. This is by court order. Each person so selected is mailed a copy of the attached questionnaire and a letter from the jury commission. When the completed questionnaire is received in the clerk's office, the questionnaires are checked by the jury commission. The names of all persons qualified in accordance with Title 28 Section 1861 and not exempt under Section 1862 or excluded by court order under Section 1863 (b) are placed in the jury box in ac cordance with Section 1864. When ordered by the Court grand or petit jury panels are drawn in accordance with Section 1864. In addition to using the names of voters the jury commission on occasion selected names at random from city directories and telephone directories. J. M. KRONINGER, Clerk. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., JUNE 27, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: It was a great pleasure to receive your very considerate letter of June 23, 1966. I appreciate very much your decision to offer an amendment to Title I of S. 3296 to exempt the District of Columbia from the coverage of its provisions. My view will be shared by my colleagues. I note your desire to make my letter of June 23, a part of the record of the hearings, and I shall be very glad to have you do so. Your thoughtful comments appeal to me very much. Speaking for myself individually and not in a representative capacity, I venture to say that the Judicial Conference should be given an opportunity to examine and express its views concerning Title I of the bill, since it affects the Federal jury system and a part of the internal machinery of the Federal courts. For the Department of Justice to frame such a bill without any conferences with any representative of the courts, and to try to rush it through before the courts may give the proposal due consideration, seems anomalous. After all the relation of the Department of Justice to the Federal courts, is that of a litigant to the courts. Apparently the Department of Justice has overlooked for the moment the independence of the judiciary as a third coordinate branch of the Government. The bill itself bears earmarks of either insufficient consideration on the part of its draftsmen, or of having been drafted by persons not sufficiently familiar with the details of the activities of the Federal courts. For example, the provision requiring a jury box to be emptied every two years and presumably a new list of jurors prepared, would cast an intolerable and impossible burden on some of the busy courts. This is only one example of the sort of thing I refer to. Thanking you for the consideration that you are giving to this matter, and with best wishes, Sincerely yours, ALEXANDER HOLTZOFF, U.S. District Judge. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Washington, D.O. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This letter is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1966, relative to the jury system used in the Western District of Michigan, and any view which I may have as to the merits of S. 3296, with particular attention to the provisions of that bill as they relate to the jury selection methods of Federal and State Courts. In brief let me say that I see no merit in the jury selection methods proposed in the legislation in question. I agree with Chief Judge McGuire that there are serious problems in the use of the standards proposed in the bill. In this District we have used the key name system. I enclose to you copies of the letters utilized by the Clerk and the Jury Commissioner in soliciting the names of persons who may be used as jurors in this court. Periodically, the jury wheel is completely emptied and a new group of names is inserted. In addition the Clerk and the Jury Commissioner will insert new names at frequent intervals to insure that there will be an up-to-date group of jurors. After a name has been submitted to the Clerk and the Jury Commissioner a letter is addressed to the prospective juror, and I enclose copies of the letter which is utilized under those circumstances. With this letter is included a questionnaire relative to the qualifications of the proposed juror. Upon the drawing of names for a panel of jurors there is submitted the usual summons which includes a questionnaire on the back, and an additional questionnaire, copies of which are enclosed. You will note that each letter and each questionnaire is self-explanatory. I call attention to the fact that the original letter to the so-called "key man" makes reference to the fact that jurors must be capable and impartial, and must be selected without regard to race, color, creed, politics, or station in life. Over the years we have been very proud of the quality of persons serving as jurors in this court. We have had laboring people, professional people, elderly people, young people, middle age people, colored people, white people, persons with numerous college degrees, and persons who were not privileged to finish the elementary grades in school. Each of the persons who has been utilized as a juror in this District has demonstrated to his fellow citizens that he is capable, that he is impartial, and that he is a fit person to serve as a juror and to judge the merits of controversies between his fellow citizens, and controversies between the Government and his fellow citizens. During the 12 years that I have served on this Court I have never had a bad jury. There have been very rare instances when I have questioned the temperamental qualifications of certain of the jurors. These occasions have been so rare that I could not now recall the name of any such juror. If jurors are drawn from the voting lists there will be numerous problems. In the first place, this is geographically a very extended district, it would be extremely difficult to obtain copies of the voter list from each municipality in which voters are registered and to keep such lists up-to-date. There would be no assurance that the person would be capable of understanding many of the matters which are determined in the United States District Courts. I sincerely hope that this brief statement in support of the present system, and in opposition to the proposed system, will be of assistance to you and to the members of your committee and the Senate as a whole. With best wishes, I am, W. WALLACE KENT, Chief Judge. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF WYOMING, Cheyenne, Wyo., July 12, 1966. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am in receipt of your letter of July 1, 1966, enclosing copies of S. 3296 and you ask that I make comments concerning the desirability of the proposed legislation and the changes it will require in our present operation. First, let me state that Wyoming is a single judge, single district court, comprising twenty-three counties and 97,000 square miles, with a total population of 330,000. Section 1864 (e) provides that the master jury wheel shall contain the names of persons residing in all counties within the judicial district. According to Section 1865 (a) the jurors shall appear before the Clerk to fill out the juror qualification form, which will mean that the jurors residing in Teton, Park, Crook. Campbell, Big Horn and Sheridan counties will have to travel a distance of 500 miles to the seat of the court, or a round trip of 1,000 miles. Are these prospec tive jurors who have to travel this distance to fill out the form to be paid mileage and per diem, or must they do so at their own expense? For your information I am enclosing a copy of Form AO 112 (Rev.), Summons for Petit Juror, which is sent to the jurors when their names are drawn and they are required to complete the form on the back and bring it with them when they report for jury service. We use approximately 120 petit and grand jurors every two years. Section 1864 (b) provides that the jury commission shall in no event place the names of fewer than 2,000 persons in the master wheel. This will mean that in Wyoming every two years we will have drawn the names of approximately 120 persons and emptied the wheel of the balance. At the present time we have on our jury panel members of all nationalities and races, including colored, Japanese and Spanish Americans, which, in my opinion, is a complete cross-section of all the citizens of this state. We draw the jurors who attend the sessions held at Cheyenne, the seat of the court, from four counties and within 100 miles of the seat of the court. We also hold court once a year at Casper, in the central part of the state, and in Sheridan, in the northern part of the state, and draw jurors from within 100 miles of the place where the court is being held. The proposed legislation would be expensive and, in my opinion, would not improve the jury panels in Wyoming. The Wyoming docket is up to date and litigants can have their cases tried in as short a time as thirty or sixty days after filing. Our present jury system has worked well for the 76 years of statehood and I trust it will not be disrupted. Sincerely yours, EWING T. KERR, District Judge. CIVIL RIGHTS Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Elkins, W. Va., July 26, 1966. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : This will acknowledge your letter and enclosures of July 1, 1966, relative to S. 3296, and particularly your inquiry concerning Title I thereof, having to do with the operation of the Federal jury system. My delay in responding has been partly due to scheduled matters and hearings and also because I needed the opportunity to fully digest the contents and the import of this pending legislation, as well as its impact, if any, upon the actual operationl of the jury selection process in this District. First, we are hopeful that the jury selection process now used in this District is fair and affords litigants a panel "of their peers" in keeping with the spirit and letter of the existing law. Shortly after being sworn in, on September 11, 1965, and your membership on the subcommittee that held a hearing incidental to my nomination was extremely vital in the process leading up to this eventuaality, for which I am grateful, I undertook to study the organization of the practical working activities of the court in this District. The Northern District involves the 31 northern counties of West Virginia, and it is provided that there shall be six statutory places of holding court (Title 28, section 129). The District, for a summary background, consists of counties that are agricultural in nature, such as in the Eastern Panhandle, which is served by Martinsburg. The Eastern Panhandle is separated from the rest of the District by the Appalachian Mountains. In the central part of the District we find an economy based on coal production, oil and gas development, together with the allied trade centers, some agricultural interests and the academic professions which make up West Virginia University. On the far western limits of the District we find the chemical and river traffic industries. The District is not divided into divisions. Based on the 1960 census, we established a population balance between the six statutory places of holding court, keeping in mind the geographic limitations. Our objective in the assignment of counties to the six statutory places of holding court was to make them as nearly equal according to population as is possible, taking into account the geographic factors, and assuring that all persons who live in the Northern District would have their litigation disposed of at a statutory place of holding court that would be most convenient and accessible to them, as well as their counsel. In the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia the place of holding court is Martinsburg, and as earlier reported, this is separated from the remaining portion of the District by an imposing range of mountains. East of the mountains The two points of holding court on are located approximately 72,600 persons. the Ohio River are Parkersburg and Wheeling. In the Parkersburg area there are approximately 100.800 persons, while in the Wheeling area there are approximately 175,000 persons. In the central part of the District, Clarksburg is a statutory place of holding court, and in the immediate area there are approximately 130,100 persons. Elkins, which is also in the central part of the District, has in its area approximately 177,700 persons, and Fairmont has approximately 119,300 persons. Recognizing the statutory minimum (Title 28, Section 1864, U.S.C.), the several counties assigned to the respective places of holding court were proportionately designated a specific number of jurors. In other words, the smallest populated county of the District would constitute the least number of jurors, and the largest county the largest number of jurors. This also is true as to the six places of holding court. Accordingly, the Martinsburg jury box will contain 325 persons. Parkersburg 451 persons, Clarksburg 582 persons, Elkins 796 persons, Fairmont 533 persons, and Wheeling 783 persons. With the places of holding court and the overall manner of selecting jurors now established on a population basis, as near as possible, we set about finding a person at each of the places of holding court to serve as Jury Commissioner, and who was a well-known member of the political party opposite to that professed by the Clerk of the Court, and who was not subject to a high exposure rate of being involved in litigation in the Federal Court system. We endeavored |