On 1 October 1999, in an action to enhance oversight of the PR mission area, the JSSA
combined with the Air Force-assigned Joint Combat Search and Rescue Agency to become the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), which had a much broader charter.
Yet the JSSA did not provide that voter registration lists are
indicating that any exclusion resulting from the JSSA's focus on
generally follow the JSSA in effectively holding that as long as the
and criminal cases, the Supreme Court has elevated the JSSA's rules
the community." (181) Despite the statutory guidance in the JSSA,
ambiguous in the Sixth Amendment, in the JSSA, and even in Supreme Court
(85.) Inside Information, JSSA
, May 1934, 2, Jewish Division, NYPL.
"As to JPRA's authority, when JSSA
and JCRA were under the Air Force, which was the PR executive agency for DOD, they were arm twisters and could point out problems.
The Duren test's three prongs seem roughly to correspond to those of the Castaneda test, but since intentional discrimination need not be shown for Sixth Amendment or JSSA challenges, conventional wisdom has it that defendants will find it easier to prevail in fair cross-section cases.(17) Nevertheless, defendants continue to bring equal protection challenges,(18) in part because some courts have imposed different mathematical criteria for what constitutes sufficient underrepresentation to make out a prima facie case in equal protection cases as opposed to fair cross-section cases.(19) Thus, despite the additional requirement of discriminatory intent, equal protection challenges may succeed in certain situations where fair cross-section challenges would fail.
As the court stated, "a difference of one (1) Negro in a panel of 60 jurors is not substantial."(35) The correct question where the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA are concerned is whether the defendant's right to trial by a jury "selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community"(36) has been violated.
In deciding that a certain degree of underrepresentation does not constitute "substantial" underrepresentation, courts have noted that neither the Constitution nor the JSSA guarantees juries or jury panels that are mirror images of the community.(69) The conclusion to be drawn, presumably, is that the defendant can have no complaint if a certain group is slightly underrepresented on the jury wheel, since the composition of the actual grand jury or petit jury may be no different from one chosen from a wheel which perfectly mirrors the community.