COA discusses jury-selection procedures

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Despite being sensitive to a defendant's concerns about having no African-Americans included in his jury pool, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his felony convictions of altering an original identification number and auto theft.

Darmon D. Bond challenged his felony convictions, arguing that the lack of African-Americans in the jury pool violated his Sixth Amendment jury trial rights; the admission of fingerprint test results violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; and there wasn't sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Police found a man's missing car parked outside Bond's home. The vehicle identification number and license plate didn't match the car. A forensic lab technician dusted for fingerprints and found prints on duct tape and the paper license plate; an examiner identified the prints as those of Bond. The technician and examiner testified at trial, but the person responsible for verifying the first examiner's results didn't appear or testify.

Bond had moved to strike the entire venire because it didn't represent a fair cross-section of the community, but the judge denied the motion, noting how the jury-panel selection process is entirely random.

In Darmon D. Bond v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-0910-CR-457, the appellate court determined it was bound by Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979), and Ewing v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1221, 1226 (Ind. 1999), and that Bond's claim can't prevail under Duren. Bond still asked the appellate court to change the criteria for determining whether the jury-selection procedure actually produces juries that are representative cross-sections of the community.

Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote the court was sensitive to Bond's concerns because jury-selection procedures in Indiana have changed recently in that the lists are now created by the state Judicial Center. Also, in other race- or gender-based constitutional jury challenges, the burden shifts more easily to the state to establish the legitimacy and neutrality of its procedures.

"Given the practical difficulties of showing systematic exclusion of minorities from jury pools in Indiana, we think easing the Duren burden for Hoosiers may be worth considering," she wrote, noting it's a good first step that the selection procedures are available online.

The appellate court also found that the method the examiner claimed to use was followed and her opinion was admissible. And because the absent examiner's results were never referenced at his trial, there is no predicate for a Sixth Amendment confrontation violation. The judges also affirmed sufficient evidence to support Bond's convictions.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?