Jury pool representation
Steven Todd Roseboro v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Steven Todd Roseboro asked the Supreme Court to review whether the Eleventh Circuit could use only the 10% absolute-disparity measure to assess whether Black people were fairly represented in jury pools, or whether courts should also consider other statistical measures.
- Who it affects
- Roseboro received no Supreme Court decision on whether the Eleventh Circuit's approach was proper.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear his petition (denied review), so it did not decide that legal question.
The dispute focused on the second step of a test for whether jury pools fairly reflect the community.
Question presented
1. Does the 10% absolute disparity rule serve as the sole metric for examining the second prong of Duren in the context of a fair cross-section argument? 2. Or as an increasing number of Circuit Courts of Appeals have determined, should rigid adherence to the 10% absolute disparity rule be jettisoned in favor of a multi-modal analysis which considers absolute disparity in conjunction with comparative disparity and standard deviation theory?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- Which other measures did Roseboro raise?
- His petition asked courts to consider comparative disparity and standard deviation alongside absolute disparity.
- Did the denial endorse the Eleventh Circuit's approach?
- No. The Court's procedural denial was not an endorsement of either side.
- Was oral argument scheduled?
- No. Argument had not been scheduled before the Supreme Court proceeding ended.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.