ORDER REGARDING AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION BASED ON FELON STATUS

SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.

Before the Court at Docket 635 is Defendant John Pearl Smith, II's Motion to Prohibit the Jury Clerk from Automatically Disqualifying Jurors Who Answer "Yes" to Question 6 on the Summons. The government did not file a response.

Last week, the Court mailed 1,200 summonses to prospective jurors in this case. The mailings each included the standard Juror Qualification Questionnaire created by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Question 6 of the Juror Qualification Questionnaire asks prospective jurors: "Have you ever been convicted of or sentenced for a state or federal crime for which punishment could have been more than one year in prison or jail (a felony)?"1 If a prospective juror answers "yes" to Question 6, he or she is asked in Question 7 "Was your right to serve on a jury restored?"2 The form informs prospective jurors that "[o]ne is disqualified from jury service only for criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, but it is the maximum penalty, and not the actual sentence, which controls."3

Procedurally, the Jury Clerk has been designated the primary responsibility for reviewing prospective jurors' returned Qualification Questionnaires and is authorized to disqualify prospective jurors if they answer "yes" to Question 6 and "no" to Question 7.4 The Jury Clerk's determination is to be based "solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form and other competent evidence. . . ."5 In this case, the Jury Clerk's disqualification of potential jurors based on the answers to Questions 6 and 7 is scheduled to occur prior to the Court's distribution of the returned Qualification Questionnaires to the parties.6

Mr. Smith "asks this Court to order the Jury Clerk to keep individuals in the venire even if they have answered `yes' to question 6 on the Juror Summons and Qualification."7 Mr. Smith reasons that "prospective jurors who have been convicted of an Alaskan state offense . . . may not be aware that their civil rights have been restored."8 This is because Alaska state law provides that a person convicted of a felony is disqualified from serving as a juror only until they have completed their sentence, including the completion of any term of probation or parole.9 Mr. Smith maintains that because the restoration of jury-service rights occurs automatically, prospective jurors with prior felony convictions might not be aware that their rights were restored upon their completion of probation or parole, and thus might answer Question 7 ("Was your right to serve on a jury restored?") incorrectly. Mr. Smith also asserts that because "racial and ethnic minorities in Alaska . . . are overrepresented in the criminal justice system," the Jury Clerk's automatic disqualification of potential jurors who answer "yes" to Question 6 and "no" to Question 7 "would undoubtedly negatively impact the number of minority jurors who reach the pool of qualified jurors."10

The Court has reviewed Mr. Smith's motion and exhibits and finds that the State of Alaska's automatic restoration of jury-service rights after unconditional discharge following a felony conviction may cause some prospective jurors with prior felony convictions to incorrectly answer Question 7.11 Particularly in this capital case, and in light of the defense's unopposed motion, a prospective juror who answers "yes" to Question 6 and "no" to Question 7 will not be automatically disqualified based solely on their responses to those questions.

By a separate order, the Chief Judge of the District of Alaska has appointed the undersigned as the supervising judge for purposes of implementing all aspects of the Jury Plan in this case.12

In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 635 is granted as follows:

(1) The Jury Clerk shall identify and maintain a separate list of the prospective jurors who answered "yes" to Question 6, but shall not disqualify any prospective juror based solely on that response;

(2) Each party may file with the Court under seal any "competent evidence" regarding the eligibility of prospective jurors who answer "yes" to Question 6 by February 24, 2020;

(3) The status of each of these prospective jurors will be addressed at the March 2, 2020 hearing; and

(4) If the Court is unable to determine the eligibility of a prospective juror from the Qualification Questionnaire and any submitted evidence, a party may ask the Court to inquire as to a specific prospective juror's restoration status by including this topic in the party's proposed voir dire due May 14, 2020.13