TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Donald Schanbarger v. Robert MacY Jr., Hudson Falls Paul J. Brown Andrew S. Conley Marjorie Clark Clarisse Mondoux

Schanbarger v. MacY, Jr., 77 F.3d 1424 (2d Cir. 1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 8, 1996
Docket
No. 1026
Citations
77 F.3d 14241996 WL 1184631996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4364

Opinion

77 F.3d 1424

Donald SCHANBARGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert MACY, Jr., Defendant, Hudson Falls; Paul J. Brown; Andrew S. Conley; Marjorie Clark; Clarisse Mondoux, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1026, Docket 95-7810.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Submitted March 1, 1996. Decided March 8, 1996.

Donald Schanbarger, pro se, Salem, New York, for Appellant.

Veronica Carrozza O'Dell, Fitzgerald Morris Baker & Firth, Glens Falls, New York, for Appellees Hudson Falls, Paul J. Brown, and Andrew S. Conley.

Jeff Culkin, Bouck, Holloway, Kiernan & Casey, Albany, New York, for Appellee Marjorie Clark.

Mark E. Cerasano, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, Glens Falls, New York, for Appellee Clarisse Mondoux.

Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Donald Schanbarger claims that his jury trial was invalid because his jury was selected based on a venire drawn from voter registration lists. For the reasons stated in United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 676-78 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 904 , 111 S.Ct. 1102 , 113 L.Ed.2d 213 (1991), and Bershatsky v. Levin, No. CV-95-4121, slip op. at 4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 1996) (Trager, J.), we hold that, absent positive evidence that some groups have been hindered in attempting to register to vote, a jury venire drawn from voter registration lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of Equal Protection. See also United States v. Ashley, 54 F.3d 311, 314-15 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 232 , 133 L.Ed.2d 161 (1995); United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1448 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1205 , 108 S.Ct. 2846 , 101 L.Ed.2d 883 (1988). No such evidence was offered.

2

We have reviewed appellant's other claims and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1996: 21997: 11999: 12000: 22002: 12003: 12019: 219962026peak 1996 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Reyes934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  2. Matima v. Celli228 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2000)
  3. United States v. Miller116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997)
  4. State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019)
  5. State of Iowa v. Kenneth L. Lilly930 N.W.2d 319 (Iowa 2019)
  6. Henry v. Horn218 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Pa. 2002)

Most recent

  1. State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019)
  2. State of Iowa v. Kenneth L. Lilly930 N.W.2d 319 (Iowa 2019)
  3. United States v. Luong255 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2003)
  4. Henry v. Horn218 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Pa. 2002)
  5. Lekunutu Matima v. Andrea E. Celli228 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2000)
  6. Matima v. Celli228 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990) 141
United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431 (4th Cir. 1988) 96
United States v. Ashley, 54 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 1995) 39

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list