New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More


There is an unqualified right to inspect the lists from which such jurors are drawn in order to raise such Constitutional challenges.


Test v. US, 420 US 28 (1975).


“The appellants are correct in asserting that the District Court’s denial of their motion for inspection and copying of jury records was reversible error. The Supreme Court’s decision in Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28, 95 S.Ct. 749, 42 L.Ed.2d 786 (1975), is dispositive of the issue. The Court held in Test that a litigant has an unqualified right to inspect jury lists under not only the plain text of the provisions of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. ‘ 1867(f), but also the Act’s overall purpose of insuring ‘grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community’, 28 U.S.C. ‘ 1861.” Government of Canal Zone v. Davis, 592 F.2d 887, 889 (5th Cir. 1979).


“This provision makes clear that a litigant has essentially an unqualified right to inspect jury lists.”


See also        28 U.S.C. ‘ 1861; 28 U.S.C. ‘ 1867(f).

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact