January 18, 2019
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of New
London, Jongbloed, J.
Rosenthal, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Allison M.
Near, for the appellant (defendant).
Weller, senior assistant states attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were Michael L. Regan, states attorney, and David J.
Smith, supervisory assistant states attorney, for the
Christine Perra Rapillo, chief public defender, and Ann M.
Parrent, assistant public defender, filed a brief for the
Office of the Chief Public Defender as amicus curiae.
C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, DAuria, Mullins and Kahn, Js.
Conn. 276] The defendant, Darnell Moore, appeals, upon our
grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of
the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after
a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes §
53a-54a. [334 Conn. 277] State v. Moore, 169
Conn.App. 470, 473, 151 A.3d 412 (2016). On appeal, the
defendant challenges the Appellate Courts conclusion that
the trial court properly denied his motion to strike the voir
dire panel on the ground that he failed to provide any
statistical analysis or data to prove that the lack of
African-American males on that panel rendered it not a fair
cross section of the New London judicial district from which
it was drawn, in violation of the sixth amendment to the
United States constitution. See Duren v. Missouri,
439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979);
State v. Gibbs, 254 Conn. 578, 588, 758 A.2d 327
(2000). The defendant contends specifically that the
Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the census data
he proffered about the percentage of all
African-Americans in the population of both Connecticut as a
whole and the New London judicial district specifically did
not constitute probative evidence with respect to the inquiry
at issue, which was limited to the percentage of
African-American males eligible for jury service,
because, "[w]ithout an ability to rely on census data,
[he] had no recourse as to how he might demonstrate a fair
cross section claim." The defendant also argues that the
Appellate Court improperly declined to exercise its
supervisory power over the administration of justice to
further the purpose of General Statutes § 51-232
(c) by requiring
[334 Conn. 278] the jury administrator to collect and
maintain racial and demographic data for all jurors because,
"without that information, there is no mechanism by
which ... any defendant can effectively present evidence of
the number of distinctive group members in the jury pool for
the pertinent judicial district."
examining the entire record on appeal and considering the
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined
that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the
ground that certification was improvidently granted.
dismissing the appeal, however, we offer an additional
observation with respect to the defendants request,
supported by the amicus curiae Office of the Chief Public
Defender, to exercise our supervisory authority over the
administration of justice to enhance the diversity of our
states juries by requiring the jury administrator to collect
racial and demographic information about prospective jurors,
including by (1) amending the juror questionnaire to mandate
the inclusion of racial and ethnic background, rather than
the current practice under § 51-232 (c) of making the
provision of such information voluntary, which might skew the
data collected, and (2) maintaining statistical information
based on that data prior to the destruction of the
questionnaires in accordance with Judicial Branch policy
intended to protect juror confidentiality. See, e.g.,
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction,328 Conn. 610,
612-15, 182 A.3d 78 (2018) (providing additional explanation
in dismissing appeal as improvidently granted). As we noted
in State v. Raynor,334 Conn. 264, 274, __ A.3d __
(2019), a companion case raising similar issues in the
context of claims under [334 Conn. 279] Batson v.
Kentucky,476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69
(1986), the fact that the legislature has acted in this area
by enacting § 51-232 (c)— which specifically makes the
provision of racial and ethnic data optional for the
juror— renders us reluctant to exercise our supervisory
authority in the sweeping manner sought by the defendant and
the amicus curiae Office of the ...