12 Cited authorities

United States v. Studley
783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 925 times
Holding that “a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient” to establish bias
Test v. United States
420 U.S. 28 (1975) Cited 146 times
Holding denial of request to inspect jury lists to be reversible error
Hirst v. Gertzen
676 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 163 times
Holding that where Montana state law deemed governmental entity to be an indispensable party in any negligence action brought against its employee, the federal court had no supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if it had no jurisdiction over the indispensable party
United States v. Hernandez-Estrada
749 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 61 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant mst establish a prima facie case that the jury pool does not reflect a fair cross-section of the community "due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."
U.S. v. Davenport
824 F.2d 1511 (7th Cir. 1987) Cited 32 times
Holding that certain information need not be disclosed to defendants generally because "there would exist the possibility of substantial abuse of the information the forms contain, which could have serious consequences for individual jurors and the system."
United States v. Cosme
CASE NO. 10CR3044 WQH (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)
CASE NO. 10CR3044 WQH 11-02-2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. (5) Carlos COSME, (6) Mario ESCAMILLA, (8) Fausto ESCAMILLA-CAMPOS, (9) Edgar Gustavo ESTRADA, (10) Jesus Quinones MARQUEZ, (11) Jose Antonio ORTEGA NUNO, (16) Oscar Daniel MONTOYA MORA, (17) Jorge Alberto RAMIREZ PONCE, (19) Jonathan VALLE, (20) Armando CASTILLO, (21) Mikael Daniel BLASER, (22) Enrique SALINAS, Jr., (23) Raul MORENO, (24) Miguel SORIA, (25) Perla Yadira FLORES, (26) Luz Maria BENAVIDEZ MARTINEZ, (27) Bridgette
U.S. v. Bogard
846 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 17 times
Affirming denial of pretrial motion as untimely where motion was filed after "the original and extended deadlines for pretrial motions" and the defendant did not "present[] . . . an explanation that warrants a waiver of the deadline"
United States v. Hurd
549 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977) Cited 17 times
Affirming as "clearly proper" the district court's exclusion in a criminal tax trial defendant's evidence "to the effect that Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute legal tender"
People of Territory of Guam v. Palomo
511 F.2d 255 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 18 times
Affirming district court's decision to retain juror where juror answered questions in English
United States v. Layton
632 F. Supp. 176 (N.D. Cal. 1986) Cited 4 times
In Layton, 519 F.Supp. at 957, however, Chief Judge Robert Peckham concluded that " the allegation regarding discrimination in the selection of forepersons fails to state a claim under the statute."
Section 1861 - Declaration of policy
28 U.S.C. § 1861 Cited 996 times 1 Legal Analyses
Codifying the right to "juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes"
Section 1867 - Challenging compliance with selection procedures
28 U.S.C. § 1867 Cited 595 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring timely objection in civil cases to preserve issues under the Jury Selection Act

Low v. Trump University, LLC et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that “a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient” to establish bias

Holding denial of request to inspect jury lists to be reversible error

Holding that where Montana state law deemed governmental entity to be an indispensable party in any negligence action brought against its employee, the federal court had no supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if it had no jurisdiction over the indispensable party

Holding that the defendant mst establish a prima facie case that the jury pool does not reflect a fair cross-section of the community "due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."

Holding that certain information need not be disclosed to defendants generally because "there would exist the possibility of substantial abuse of the information the forms contain, which could have serious consequences for individual jurors and the system."

Affirming denial of pretrial motion as untimely where motion was filed after "the original and extended deadlines for pretrial motions" and the defendant did not "present[] . . . an explanation that warrants a waiver of the deadline"

Affirming as "clearly proper" the district court's exclusion in a criminal tax trial defendant's evidence "to the effect that Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute legal tender"

Affirming district court's decision to retain juror where juror answered questions in English

In Layton, 519 F.Supp. at 957, however, Chief Judge Robert Peckham concluded that " the allegation regarding discrimination in the selection of forepersons fails to state a claim under the statute."

Codifying the right to "juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes"

Requiring timely objection in civil cases to preserve issues under the Jury Selection Act