United States v. Torres-Hernandez

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-50136 v. JOSE ANTONIO TORRES-HERNANDEZ,  D.C. No. CR-04-02060-LAB a.k.a. Roberto Martinez- OPINION Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 7, 2006—Pasadena, California Filed May 8, 2006 Before: Alex Kozinski, Stephen S. Trott, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea

5173 UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ 5175

COUNSEL Zandra L. Lopez, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, California, for the defendant-appellant.

Carol C. Lam, Roger W. Haines, Jr. & David P. Curnow, United States Attorney, San Diego, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

5176 UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ OPINION BEA, Circuit Judge: Today we decide a district court need not and may not take into account Hispanics who are ineligible for jury service to determine whether Hispanics are underrepresented on grand jury venires. To establish a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that grand juries reflect a fair cross- section of the community, a defendant must prove in part “that the representation of [an allegedly underrepresented] group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).

We hold that, to determine whether Hispanics are underrepre- sented to an unconstitutional degree in venires, a district court must rely on that evidence which most accurately reflects the judicial district’s actual percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics.

Because the district court here used the most accurate data presented to it by the parties—data that excluded segments of the Hispanic population ineligible for jury service—we affirm Torres-Hernandez’s conviction and sentence.

I. Background On February 7, 2005, after a jury trial, the district court sentenced Jose Antonio Torres-Hernandez to fifty-one months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release for being a deported alien within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Torres-Hernandez had previously been deported on October 5, 1996.

Before his trial, Torres-Hernandez moved to dismiss his indictment. He argued that, in violation of the Sixth Amend- ment, the systematic exclusion of Hispanics in Southern Dis- trict of California grand jury venires had resulted in a grand jury that did not represent a fair cross-section of the commu- nity.

UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ 5177 To support his motion, Torres-Hernandez presented the expert opinion and statistical analysis of Dr. John R. Weeks.

Weeks prepared evidence that the overall population of the Southern District of California, composed of San Diego and Imperial Counties, is 28.9 percent Hispanic. Weeks also found that, of individuals in the district “age eligible” for jury service, 24.8 percent were Hispanic. Finally, Weeks calcu- lated that “jury-eligible” Hispanic individuals comprised 16.1 percent of the district’s jury-eligible population.1 Weeks compared this data to the percentage of Hispanics on Torres-Hernandez’s grand jury venire—14.1 percent—to determine whether Hispanics were fairly represented. Weeks subtracted the percentage of Hispanics on Torres-Hernandez’s grand jury venire from the general, age-eligible, and jury- eligible percentages described above to arrive at various “ab- solute disparities”: 14.8, 10.7, and 2.0 percentage points respec- tively.2 Weeks then divided the absolute disparity corresponding to the jury-eligible Hispanic population (2.0 percent) by the percentage of jury-eligible individuals who are Hispanic (16.1 percent) to arrive at a “relative disparity” of 12.1 percent.3 5178 UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ After Torres-Hernandez was convicted for being a deported alien inside the country,4 the district court denied his motion to dismiss his indictment because it ruled that Hispanics were fairly represented on his grand jury venire.5 First, the district court found that the Ninth Circuit favors the absolute disparity test, not the relative disparity test, to measure the representa- tiveness of a distinctive group on jury venires. Second, the district court implicitly found that, to determine whether His- panics were underrepresented on Torres-Hernandez’s grand jury, it must compare the percentage of Hispanics on Torres- Hernandez’s grand jury to the percentage of jury-eligible His- panics in the district. Because the absolute disparity between the percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics and the percentage of Hispanics on Torres-Hernandez’s grand jury venire was only 2.0 percentage points, the district court held that Torres- Hernandez did not establish a prima facie violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement.

Torres-Hernandez timely appealed to this court.

II. Analysis A. Sixth Amendment Fair Cross-Section Claim We review de novo a Sixth Amendment challenge to the composition of a grand jury. See United States v. Rodriguez- Lara, 421 F.3d 932, 939 (9th Cir. 2005).

UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ 5179 [1] The Supreme Court in Duren established that grand juries do not represent a fair cross-section of the community when the jury-selection process systematically excludes a dis- tinctive group of the jury-eligible population. 439 U.S. at 363- 64.

In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in rela- tion to the number of such persons in the commu- nity; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury- selection process. Id. at 364.6 The second prong of the Duren test requires proof, typically statistical data, that the jury pool does not adequately represent the distinctive group in relation to the number of such persons in the community. We have been confronted with this issue before and have favored the “absolute disparity” test for measuring the representativeness of a distinctive group in a jury pool.

United States v. Esquivel, 88 F.3d 722, 726 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted).

5180 UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ [2] Our precedents agree that to prove Hispanics are under- represented in a given district’s jury pools, the ultimate basis for comparison is the district’s actual percentage of jury eligi- ble Hispanics. See id. at 727 (relying on the government’s sta- tistical data, which excluded minors and non-citizens, to find that the absolute disparity was inadequate to satisfy Duren’s second element, because such data more accurately reflected the actual percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics than did the defendant’s general population data); Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d at 942 (reiterating Esquivel’s preference for data that excludes jury-ineligible populations, as opposed to general population data, because the former is a “refined set of data for the purpose of the defendant’s prima facie case under Duren” (emphasis added)).

[3] At the same time, our cases conflict as to whether a defendant who presents only evidence that includes non-jury- eligible segments of the population may ever satisfy a prima facie case. In United States v. Artero, 121 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1997), we held that a defendant must proffer jury-eligible sta- tistical evidence of Hispanics to compare against the percent- age of Hispanics on a jury venire. Id. at 1261 (“The right question is whether Hispanics eligible to serve on federal juries were unreasonably underrepresented because of system- atic exclusion.”). By contrast, we later held in Rodriguez-Lara that a defendant may establish that jury-eligible Hispanics are underrepresented on a jury venire by proffering evidence of a less precise approximation for the percentage of jury- eligible Hispanics in a district—the overall percentage of His- panics in the district or, if available, the percentage of age- eligible Hispanics in the district.7 421 F.3d at 941-44.

Rodriguez-Lara recognized its conflict with Artero, but sim- ply dismissed Artero as incorrectly decided. See id. at 942-43.

UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ 5181 [4] We need not make a sua sponte en banc call in this case to resolve the intra-circuit conflict because the district court here had jury-eligible statistical data that satisfied both the higher evidentiary burden of Artero and, necessarily, the lesser burden of Rodriguez-Lara. See United States v. White- head, 896 F.2d 432, 434 (9th Cir. 1990) (reasoning that it need not resolve an intra-circuit conflict regarding the appli- cable standard of review because the district court did not err even under the stricter, de novo standard).

[5] We resolve this case under the principle explained in Esquivel: When presented with various types of data to deter- mine whether Hispanics are underrepresented on grand jury venires, a court must rely on the statistical data that best approximates the percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics in the district.

In Esquivel, we did not need to decide whether the defen- dant had established a prima facie case with general popula- tion data because we had before us data that better approximated the actual percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics in the district. 88 F.3d at 727. The defendant proffered evi- dence that, in 1993, 24.2 percent of the Southern District of California’s population was Hispanic. Id. at 726. Because the defendant’s master wheel was composed of 9.7 percent His- panics, the defendant claimed there existed an absolute dis- parity of 14.5 percentage points. Id. The government rebutted this evidentiary showing by requesting that we take judicial notice of 1990 census data showing that Hispanic U.S. citi- zens over eighteen years old comprised only 14.6 percent of the relevant population, which led to only a 4.9 percentage points absolute disparity. Id. at 726-27. We looked to the gov- ernment’s statistical evidence because it better approximated the relevant Hispanic population—those individuals eligible to serve on federal juries. See id. at 727 (calling the defen- dant’s computation of absolute disparity, calculated using the total population of Hispanics, “inaccurate and overestimated” because “the absolute disparity between Hispanics in the pop- 5182 UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ ulation and the jury wheel is only 4.9 percent when readily available data relating to jury eligibility is taken into account.” (emphasis added)). The government’s evidence established that the absolute disparity between jury-eligible Hispanics and Hispanics on the defendant’s jury venire was constitutionally insignificant. Id. [6] Just as we did in Esquivel, in deciding the absolute dis- parity of Hispanics was constitutionally insignificant in the present case, the district court here relied on the most refined data it had. Although Torres-Hernandez’s witness Weeks pre- pared evidence that Hispanics compose 28.9 percent of the general population and 24.8 percent of the age-eligible popu- lation, he also prepared evidence that only 16.1 percent of the jury-eligible population was Hispanic.8, 9 The district court UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ 5183 correctly found that a 2.0 percentage points absolute disparity between the percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics and the per- centage of Hispanics on Torres-Hernandez’s grand jury venire was constitutionally insignificant. See id. (holding that a 4.9 percentage points absolute disparity was constitutionally insignificant). Therefore, the district court correctly denied Torres-Hernandez’s motion to dismiss his indictment based on a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement.

B. Other Constitutional Claims Torres-Hernandez’s other claims clearly fail under control- ling precedent.

Torres-Hernandez claims that a CNR was “testimonial” within the meaning of Crawford and its admission into evi- dence therefore violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation in those two counties was likely to be lower than the ratio for the general population. 121 F.3d at 1261.

Statistical data that excludes populations such as under-age, non-citizen, and non-English-speaking Hispanics will tend more accurately to approxi- mate the actual percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics than less refined, or general population, data. However, it is conceivable that a particular set of jury-eligible data could have such a large margin of error, due to an expert’s flawed methodology or other factors, that other data before the court would more accurately reflect the actual percentage of jury-eligible Hispanics in a district. If such a case were to arise, a district court would have to weigh experts’ competing evidence, including the experts’ qualifi- cations, biases, motives, methodologies, and all other elements used to weigh expert testimony, to determine which data set was most accurate.

We would review a district court’s finding for clear error. Cf. Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1144 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We review the dis- trict court’s conclusion as to a prima facie case of disparate impact [under Title VII] de novo but review the underlying findings of fact for clear error. In particular, we give deference to a district court’s findings regard- ing statistical evidence.” (internal citation omitted)).

5184 UNITED STATES v. TORRES-HERNANDEZ Clause rights. However, we recently rejected just such a claim. See United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

The district court also did not violate Torres-Hernandez’s Sixth Amendment rights by sentencing him above the applica- ble statutory maximum based on its finding of a prior convic- tion, without a finding of such prior conviction by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is controlling precedent. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n.16 (9th Cir. 2005).

Finally, Torres-Hernandez argues that the district court vio- lated Fifth Amendment retroactivity principles by considering the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, pursuant to the remedial holding in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Such an argument has no merit. See United States v. Dupas, 417 F.3d 1064, 1066-69 (9th Cir. 2005).

III. Conclusion We AFFIRM Torres-Hernandez’s conviction and sentence.