While there is no maximum age limit fixed by law, nevertheless experience has demonstrated that as a general rule persons over 70 years of age are prone to possess physical or mental limitations which make efficient jury service for them extremely difficult. Therefore, you are asked not to suggest persons who have passed their 70th birthday except in unusual instances where you feel that age has not appreciably restricted the individual's capacity. A blank form and a self-addressed envelope which required no postage is enclosed for your use in reply. Please do not act hastily, but a response at the earliest date possible will be greatly appreciated. Your only reward for this service will be the knowledge that you have made an important contribution to the better functioning of a vital institution of our democracy. For you, I am sure, this will be reward enough. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK, DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Your name has been listed as a prospective juror for service in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Because the right of trial by jury is a significant bulwark of American democracy, a citizen's service as a juror is both a privilege and a patriotic duty. In your performance of this duty the Court desires to eliminate as much inconvenience to you as is possible. Accordingly, a questionnaire is enclosed designed for a preliminary determination as to your qualifications to serve as a juror. By fully answering these questions and promptly returning the questionnaire in the enclosed envelope, you will avoid the necessity of personally attending court until such time as your name may be drawn. Please execute and return the form without delay. Nothing further is required of you at this time. Very truly yours, RICHARD C. PECK, Name and address of Employer If retired, state former occupation_. If married, give name and occupation of husband or wife: How long have you resided in Nebraska? Occupation -- If so, give details on reverse side. This will be treated as confidential. Can you read, write, speak and understand English language? Do you have any mental or physical infirmity which you feel would make you incapable to render efficient jury service?_ If so, give full details on reverse side. Are you on active service in the Armed Forces? Are you a member, other than volunteer, of a police or fire department? If so, state name and location List any public office, Federal, State or Local, which you now hold Have you previously served as a juror? in which you last served----. If so, state date and court If any reason exists why you cannot serve, state full details on reverse side. The Statements Herein Are Certified To Be True. Signature [EXHIBIT 6] THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ORDER IN THE MATTER OF EXCUSE OF CERTAIN CLASSES OR GROUPS OF PERSONS FROM SERVICE AS JURORS Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1863 (b), the Court finds that jury service on the part of the classes or groups of persons enumerated hereinafter would entail undue hardship, extreme inconvenience or serious obstruction or delay in the fair and impartial administration of justice. It Is Therefore Ordered, for the public interest, that the following groups or classes of persons, when actively engaged in the practice of their professions, are excused from jury service and are to be excluded from the jury panel, to-wit: physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, funeral directors, school teachers, clergymen, and lawyers. Dated this 9th day of March, 1960. By the Court: (S) RICHARD E. ROBINSON, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court. (S) ROBERT VAN PELT, Judge, U.S. District Court. [EXHIBIT 7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ORDER TO DRAW JURORS IN THE MATTER OF DRAWING PETIT JURORS FOR SERVICE AT OMAHA, NEBRASKA It Is Ordered that on the 10th day of November, 1965, in the office of the Clerk of this Court at Omaha, Nebraska, at the hour of 2:30 P.M., the Clerk and the Jury Commissioner, shall, in the manner provided by law, place into the jury box from which Petit Jurors are drawn for service in this Court at Omaha, Nebraska, a total of 350 names of qualified persons selected from the counties designated in the Order entered on January 6, 1961. It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk and the Jury Commissioner shall thereupon, at said time and place, publicly draw from said box into which said names have been so placed, the names of Two Hundred Fifty (250) persons qualified to serve as Petit Jurors in this Court at Omaha, Nebraska. Dated this 4th day of November, 1965. By the Court: Senator ERVIN (continuing). I would like to ask each of you gentlemen present whether any one of you disagrees with the view that Mr. Peck has expressed with respect to the provisions of title I, that it should not be enacted at this time but on the contrary should be referred to the Judicial Conference and other interested bodies like the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association for their study and recommendations? If any of you disagree with Mr. Peck's answer to that effect, I would appreciate your expressing your views at this time. Mr. IHLENFELDT. Mr. Chairman, I am Dale Ihlenfeldt, clerk from the eastern district of Wisconsin. For our district, the use of the polling lists is feasible. But I do not know the problems of those districts that are presently using the keyman lists. So I cannot deny that it may be well for them to have such a study made. STATEMENT OF HAROLD W. ANDERSON, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am Harold W. Anderson, western district of Washington. May I make a very brief statement? Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. ANDERSON. I do agree very much with my brother Peck. My State, too, has wide open spaces and from the far reaches of my southern division, particularly, the round trip is approximately 300 miles. To have jurors come in for the purpose of filling out questionnaires, which we have always done by mail, would be most inconvenient. I do not think my State has any higher degree of intelligence than any other State, but we rarely get a questionnaire back that is illegible and the English used is not good. We have no difficulty in obtaining the information that the court wants. Our State system of voter registration books gives the jury commissioner and myself a little more information, perhaps, than other States. Our books give name, address, occupation and his voting record not how he voted or his party. This was eliminated in 1934, but the record does show every election in which he voted, not only general but primary, school elections, sewer district, water district, road district, etc., as an indication of good citizenship. So when we see a good voting record, we take that person's name. We go through the books, thusly, name by name. The selection at random to me would be horrible, if we just went by rote, or without aim or purpose. In selecting the names, our object is to get juries that represent a cross section of our community as to economic status and without regard to race or creed or color, or religion. We purposely take about six men to four women, about that ratio, in selecting our names. We get laboring people, white collar workers, blue collar workers, professional people. We make second class citizens of no one in our State. The only names we do not select are those which are exempt by statute the policemen, the firemen, the military, and local government officials working full time at their jobs. So we do have a good spread of our citizenry. We purposely take names from throughout the district. By doing this, we get, without knowing it, a fair proportion of all races and I could take an oath that I know no man's color when I select his name. Yet by going into the precincts where we do have a concentration of nonwhites, we do get a fair percentage. We have slightly over 5 percent of nonwhite which includes Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, as well as Negro. They are all good American citizens, they are intelligent and they make good jurors. So it comes out that we do have a good 5 percent representation by selecting 5 percent from the 60 to 70 precincts, principally in the city of Seattle, our major city, where these nonwhites live. I would like to make one or two other comments on this being referred to the Judicial Conference of each circuit, perhaps, and then finally to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The judicial districts and the courts vary so much in size, Mr. Chairman, as you know. Many districts are a one-district court. They may only have one judge. Other districts have various divisions with many judges. The court business, of course, can be sleepy in some districts and in others, it is very complex and very busy. So that the requirements of each district will vary so drastically that we cannot have the same rules apply to the middle district of some small State and compare it with requirements of Southern District of New York, or Los Angeles in southern California. Nor will 1 percent be satisfactory. This, in my district, would entail a tremendous burden on my present staff. In the past a good jury commissioner has given his time at $5 a day as a good citizen, considering it a public service. But the present bill would require more personnel and would increase the cost. So I do want to emphasize that I oppose title I being enacted at this time. I think there are many things in it that are excellent. To increase the compensation of the jury commissioner is one of these. This has long been needed. Even if you make it $25 a day, it is not compensable, because generally I have found in talking to many clerks in my district that the commissioners are men of some standing in the community. In fact, the present statute says that they must be well-known men of the opposite party to the clerk. So in my district, I have two prom inent Republicans, because the clerk happens to be a Democrat. Why that political rule, I do not know, because in my State, as I say, the political affiliation of the voters is not known from the voter registration books. Many States, I believe, do show their party. I will not read my written statement, Mr. Chairman. I believe you Isaid it would be in the record. I shall not take the time for that. I appreciate the time allowed for my few remarks. Senator ERVIN. Let the record show that Mr. Anderson's written statement will be printed in full in the body of the record after his extemporaneous remarks. (The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:) STATEMENT OF HAROLD W. ANDERSON, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE Mr. Chairman, I am Harold W. Anderson and serve as Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which position I have held since April 1959. I also serve as a U.S. Commissioner and am Vice-President of the Federal Court Clerks' Association. I am an attorney and have been a member of the Washington State Bar since 1928. As requested in your invitation to me to testify before this Subcommittee, my comments are directed to the technical aspects of Title I of S. 3296, relating to jury selection and other purposes. § 1863-I believe the proposed change in compensation for the jury commissioner from $5.00 to $16.00 per day is a step in the right direction. In my District the two jury commissioners who serve in the two Divisions of our court, are and their predecessors have been prominent business or professional men. The $16.00 proposed, of course, would not be compensatory. Such compensation is not adequate unless the work of a jury commissioner is considered to be a public service. I recommend a jury commissioner be paid $25.00 per day together with mileage at 10¢ per mile and subsistence of $16.00 per day, when transacting official business away from his official station. § 1864 (b) The proposal that the jury commission place in the master wheel the names of at least 1 per centum of the total number of persons listed on the voter registration lists for the district or division, would be extremely burdensome, time consuming, expensive and unnecessary. The registered voters in the Northern Division of our court, which comprises six counties, totalled 756,272 persons in 1964. In the Southern Division of our court, which comprises 10 counties, there were 343,705 registered voters in 1964. This would mean that the jury commission would have to obtain the names and addresses of 7,562 persons in the Northern Division and 3,437 in the Southern Division. Considering the fact that in a two-year period we would only use up 900 names in the Northern Division and 650 names in the Southern Division for jury service, it is readily apparent that we would needlessly be obtaining thousands of names. If in addition to the selection of names from the voter registration lists, it should be required that we obtain the names of 1 per centum of the total number of persons of voting age residing in the district or division according to the most recent decennial census, this would mean that we would have to obtain the names and addresses of 7,638 persons in the Northern Division (based on the 1960 census of voting age persons of 763,820); in the Southern Division of our court we would have to obtain the names and addresses of 4,009 persons (based on the 1960 census of voting age persons of 400,928). In our District we obtain most of the names from the voter registration lists, however, we always obtain some names from other sources such as key men and public officials in outlying communities, together with a few names selected at random from telephone books and city directories. I do not agree that the jury commission should place in the master wheel the names of at least 2.000 persons. This figure would certainly vary by districts throughout the country. In the Northern Division of our District, our experience has proven that 1.800 names will last on an average of three years; in the Southern Division of our District, a list of 1,300 names will also last on an |