context: This court has been concerned with the opportunity for abuse presented when the sheriff or another "key man" exercises discretion in selecting bystander jurors to complete jury panels.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 62 F.2d 261, 271
citation_a.parenthetical: selection of bystander jurors by "interested" marshal under repealed federal statute
citation_a.sentence: See Ross v. Wyrick, 581 F.2d 172, 174-75 (8th Cir.1978) (unconstitutional underrepresentation of blacks on master jury list was not cured, by sheriff’s personal selection of blacks as bystander jurors); cf. Cravens v. United States, 62 F.2d 261, 271 (8th Cir.1933) (selection of bystander jurors by “interested” marshal under repealed federal statute), cert, denied, 289 U.S. 733, 53 S.Ct. 594, 77 L.Ed. 1481 (1933).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 581 F.2d 172, 174-75
citation_b.parenthetical: unconstitutional underrepresentation of blacks on master jury list was not cured, by sheriff's personal selection of blacks as bystander jurors
citation_b.sentence: See Ross v. Wyrick, 581 F.2d 172, 174-75 (8th Cir.1978) (unconstitutional underrepresentation of blacks on master jury list was not cured, by sheriff’s personal selection of blacks as bystander jurors); cf. Cravens v. United States, 62 F.2d 261, 271 (8th Cir.1933) (selection of bystander jurors by “interested” marshal under repealed federal statute), cert, denied, 289 U.S. 733, 53 S.Ct. 594, 77 L.Ed. 1481 (1933).