Legal Definitions - comparative disparity

In constitutional law, comparative disparity is a statistical measure used to assess whether a specific group of people is significantly underrepresented in a jury pool (also known as a "venire") compared to their proportion in the general population of the community. This analysis is often employed when challenging the fairness of jury selection, arguing that the jury pool does not represent a "fair cross-section" of the community, which is a constitutional requirement.

The calculation for comparative disparity involves several steps:

1. First, determine the absolute disparity: This is the simple percentage difference between a group's representation in the general population and their representation in the jury pool.
2. Second, divide this absolute disparity by the group's percentage in the general population.
3. Finally, multiply the result by 100 to express it as a percentage.

A high comparative disparity suggests a greater degree of underrepresentation relative to the group's overall presence in the community. However, some courts view this measure with caution, believing it can sometimes exaggerate the actual extent of underrepresentation, especially for smaller demographic groups.

• Example 1: Age Group Underrepresentation

  Imagine a county where individuals aged 65 and older make up 25% of the eligible population for jury service. However, when a jury pool is assembled, only 15% of the potential jurors are from this age group. To calculate the comparative disparity:
  First, the absolute disparity is 25% (population) - 15% (jury pool) = 10%.
  Then, divide this absolute disparity by the group's population percentage: 10% / 25% = 0.40.
  Finally, multiply by 100: 0.40 * 100 = 40%.
  This 40% comparative disparity indicates that the older age group is underrepresented in the jury pool by 40% relative to their presence in the community. This could be used to argue that the jury selection process might be inadvertently excluding older adults.

• Example 2: Geographic/Ethnic Group Disparity

  Consider a large city where residents of a particular ethnic background, predominantly living in a specific district, constitute 30% of the city's total eligible population. Yet, in a randomly selected jury pool for a major trial, only 20% of the potential jurors are from this ethnic group. To calculate the comparative disparity:
  First, the absolute disparity is 30% (population) - 20% (jury pool) = 10%.
  Then, divide this absolute disparity by the group's population percentage: 10% / 30% = 0.333 (approximately).
  Finally, multiply by 100: 0.333 * 100 = 33.3%.
  A comparative disparity of 33.3% suggests a significant underrepresentation of this ethnic group in the jury pool, which might prompt an investigation into whether the method of drawing jurors (e.g., from voter registration lists or driver's licenses) is inadvertently biased against residents of that particular district or ethnic background.

• Example 3: Gender Underrepresentation

  In a federal judicial district, women comprise 50% of the eligible adult population. However, a review of several recent jury venires reveals that women consistently make up only 35% of the potential jurors summoned for service. To calculate the comparative disparity:
  First, the absolute disparity is 50% (population) - 35% (jury pool) = 15%.
  Then, divide this absolute disparity by the group's population percentage: 15% / 50% = 0.30.
  Finally, multiply by 100: 0.30 * 100 = 30%.
  This 30% comparative disparity could be presented as evidence in a legal challenge arguing that the jury selection process is not adequately ensuring a fair representation of women, potentially violating the constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.