We are not free to presume that he ignored these requirements. The sponsor therefore knew exactly what was required for those he was to recommend as prospective jurors. Furthermore, the letter to each sponsor quoted 1861. The information requested as to age, occupation and employer is not completely unrevealing as to capacity. Voting status under Nebraska law would presumably show United States citizenship, at least six months’ residence in the district, R.R.S.Neb.1943 32-102, and something as to criminal record, R.R.S.Neb.
The filling out of the form and its return would result in some indication of the prospect’s language ability and of his infirmities. Yet they did advise him of the purpose of the questionnaire itself and they did inquire as to his being a voter. They did not inquire, for example, as to a prospect’s fluency in English, as to his criminal record and as to his mental and physical capacities. (c) The questionnaires employed were not as desirably complete as they might have been. Also, the law does not contemplate that the jury officials be personally acquainted with each prospective juror. Although certain of the requests to sponsors were limited as to sex, the requests, taken as a group, were not so limited and the one requesting names of Negro males was sent to a deputy federal court clerk who was himself a Negro and who reasonably might be expected to possess usefully wide acquaintanceship with others of his race. It was coupled as to each prospect with a questionnaire directed to most of the qualifications specified by the statute. Here a sponsor’s recommendation was not the sole feature of the selection process. Brandt, N.D.Ohio, 1955,, 360 United States v. 391 of 93 F.2d, where this court said that this ‘was not a delegation, but a discharge of duty’ United States v.
(a) When the jury officials themselves are the ones who ultimately determine a juror’s qualification, the sponsor system is not in itself an invalidating factor. When the defense claims the existence of a fatal flaw in the selection process it has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Charles Kazuyuki Fujimoto, D.Hawaii, 1952,, 729. There is a presumption that the jury officials have discharged their duties properly.
‘The choice of the means * * * rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial courts and their officers’ under the guidance of the pertinent statutes. However, Congress has prescribed no particular method of jury selection. It has been said, too, that the duty of selection cannot be delegated by jury officials. Silverman, D.Conn., 1955,, 511 United States v. Since then, some courts have specifically so held. It was suggested long ago that the placing of names of qualified persons in the jury box is mandatory.