We've launched a new site so please go to People & Research for current information on our faculty and staff.
Other
Abstract:
This research focuses on jury lists in Durham County. The July 2020
Durham Racial Equity Task Force (DRETF) report outlining Durham's
most pressing racial equity issues has identified jury pool
diversification as a top priority. Jury pools, and eventually juries
themselves, are drawn from a master jury list. Master jury lists in North
Carolina County courts are statutorily formed by combining the lists of
registered voters and licensed drivers. Black and Indigenous, as well as
other minoritized populations of color (BIPOC) citizens, are under represented in the two required source lists as compared to the general
population and thus are under-represented in jury lists and juries
(Randall et al, 2008). When race-based juror exclusion occurs, there are
at least three major consequences: the courts are not meeting their
constitutional obligation to try defendants by juries of their peers; non white defendants are disproportionately convicted; and community
trust among non-white citizens in criminal-legal institutions decreases,
which leads to diminished social cohesion.
This study examined the two required source lists and the master jury
list in Durham County to determine the degree to which they represent
the racial and ethnic composition of the County's overall population. We
found that White persons were over-represented in both the voter and
licensed drivers lists and that Black and Hispanic/Latino persons were
under-represented. We explored equity arguments and implementation
capability to identify viable options for better cross-sectional
representation on jury master lists. Three potential policies were
examined to determine if they could improve racial/ethnic
representation of the final master jury list: increasing the size of the
master jury list by using additional sources that would likely contribute
more non-White persons to the list; purposely selecting individuals on
the raw master list for the final master list in proportion to their race
categories in the general population; and using zip codes as a proxy for
race by weighting the zip codes to select a more significant proportion
of people from the most diverse zip codes in the County. All the policy
alternatives presented administrative hurdles, but policies for
increasing the size of the master list using existing statutory authority to
access additional source lists, seem to have the greatest potential for
making the master jury list more closely represent the population of
Durham County.