WPC: c==Gc3#jf`AFezJ"sg\Cv]z12΂}Iv5-ylV bx ]ڒNFBE8 .{١:=Sn T֪?娔u>b3skHijO~2VgG~-Sv-s IDf_VkhYCr)gpWHh޲65%:˽BtD֯Ks}*Z0>z!1>yjXHSޟcʒͅ @zYz7s;Ka}]=M޽/K6'*w{= (U# %o U 8u 0G U: 0. U@ nTS N ^ w 4   m  E f a 0D N-N/N1N3 1u5 72 0c 0?NN^UBZb 0U 0 0 0 Bv 0 0F 0 0 0; 0 0 0 01 0 0y 0 0 06 0 0 0v 0  0 0b 0 0!1"?G),?/3U8r7UF77777777777777777KONICA MINOLTA 7085/IP-602,,,,0X<4 9Z+ Courier New ($XOXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT((2 g$ !XI,XXX    =I,Xdd=    0  (9 Z(Times New Roman <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@G3 '3E3H{backup3|xU TrainorBillman LLPGormleyBrandenGertnerApfel Fick HoagDouganGoodeOgletreeTABLE A(#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -*+ (_2623  ..  *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) `  d*/+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x    '  g$X\XXX  =\Xdd=    1    _Thechallengedparagraphsoftheorderprovidedthatwith  respecttothepresentcase:     (#33"3"  32#  1  .3  0   ForallsummonsesreturnedtotheCourt 2 as"undeliverable,"thesamenumberof X newsummonsesshouldbemailedto . residentswholiveinthesamezipcode   areaastheundeliverablesummonses.   Replacementsummonseswillbeselected `  fromasupplementalarray,mergedwith 6   theexistingarrayandrandomized;3݌ \  x x Ќ  "3"  3o2#  2  .3  0   Forallsummonsesforwhichthereisno   response("nonresponses")afterasecond   mailing,thesamenumberofnewsummonses d  shouldbemailedtoresidentswholivein :  thesamezipcodeareaasthe `  nonrespondents.Replacementsummonses 6 willbeselectedfromasupplemental    array,mergedwiththeexistingarrayand  randomized;...3o݌ x x Ќ   5  g$X\XXX  =\Xdd=    2    _TheSupremeCourtcautionedinWillv.UnitedStates,389  U.S.90(1967),againsttheoverreadyuseofmandamusincriminal  cases,id.at9698;butitsownprecedentsbothbeforeandafter \  Willmakeclearthatmandamusisavailableinexceptional  circumstancesinbothcivilandcriminalcases.Schlagenhaufv.  Holder,379U.S.104,110(1964);UnitedStatesv.UnitedStates \ Dist.Ct.forE.Dist.ofMich.,407U.S.297,301n.3(1972).   g$X\XXX  =\Xdd=    3    _TheJSSAprovidesashortpretrialwindowwithinwhicha  partymustmovetochallengenoncompliancewiththeprovisionsof  thestatuteandfurtherprovides,withsomequalifications,that \ thisisan"exclusive"remedy.28U.S.C.1867(a)(c),(e).The 2 Y governmentdidmakeitsobjectionwithinthisperiodandthe  statutedoesnotspecifyhoworwhensuchchallengesmaybe  presentedtoanappellatecourtanditdoesnotprecludemandamus. 5  g$X\XXX  =\Xdd=    4    _Employingidenticallanguage,boththeSenateandHouse  reportsexplain:"Thespecificandcomprehensivenatureofthe  provisionsoftheactandthelocalplanwillassurethatthereare \ readilyavailablestandardsagainstwhichtheselectionprocedures 2 maybemeasured.Thus,proceduralregularityisthemeasureofthe X Y validityoftheselectionsystem.Itisanappropriatemeasure  sincethebillsetsupalargelymechanicalprocessinwhichthe  roleofhumandiscretionisminimized.Thebilldoesnotguarantee \ thateachvenireoreachjurywillmirrorthestructureofthe 2 community.Itguaranteesonlythatappropriateselection X procedureshavebeenused."   g$X\XXX  =\Xdd=    5    _Thisiswellsettledinthecloselyrelatedareaof  rulemaking.CX\XXX\See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.HoytsCinemasCorp.,380  F.3d558,569(1stCir.2004);Levesquev.Block,723F.2d175, \ 17885(1stCir.1983);Hoctorv.U.S.Dept.ofAgric.,82F.3d 2 165,17072(7thCir.1996);MissionGroupKan.v.Riley,146F.3d X 775,78283(10thCir.1998);UnitedStatesv.Picciotto,875F.2d . 345,34649(D.C.Cir.1989).#X\XXCX\(#DX\XXX\<4 9Z+ Courier New L 9Z+.Courier New Regular   g$X\XXX  =\Xdd=    6    _UnitedStatesv.Rioux,97F.3d648,660(2dCir.1996);  UnitedStatesv.Allen,160F.3d1096,1102(6thCir.1998),cert.  denied,526U.S.1044(1999);UnitedStatesv.Clifford,640F.2d \ 150,15455(8thCir.1981);UnitedStatesv.Miller,771F.2d 2 1219,1227(9thCir.1985);UnitedStatesv.Shinault,147F.3d X 1266,127071(10thCir.),cert.denied,525U.S.988(1998). !X\XXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !     XXXX\zXXUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#XXz#  LXXFortheFirstCircuit#XXLx# #X\XXX#  A') ` dE<` A   No.052358   @0 0 INRE:UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, K  @XX%Petitioner.  G  A') ` dE<` A   @P P ONPETITIONFORAWRITOFMANDAMUSTOTHE   @| | UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHE ^  @DISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 4  @<< ____________________  Z  @P P [Hon.NancyGertner,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<a` A b @'Before G   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, C Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge,  andLynch,CircuitJudge. K A') ` dE<` A G       TimothyQ._Feeley_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneywithwhom ,  MichaelJ.Sullivan,UnitedStatesAttorney,LoriJ._Holik_, ! AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneyandTheodoreB.Heinrich, " AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneywereonpetitionforawritof ^ # mandamus,motiontostaydistrictcourtorder,andrequestfor 4!$ leavetofileasupplementalbrief.  "Z%   Patricia_Garin_withwhomMaxD.Stern,KennethM._Resnik_, "0& Stern,Shapiro,_Wiessberg_Ԁ&_Garin_,LLP,DavidP._Hoose_,Katz, #' _Sasson_,_Hoose_Ԁ&_Turnbill_,JohnH._Cuhna_,Jr.,_Cuhna_Ԁ&_Holcomb_, $( P.C.,Randolph_Gioia_,Elizabeth_Billowitz_,LawOfficeofRandy b% ) _Gioia_,SarahJenningsHunt,WilliamC.Brennan,Jr.,Brennan, 8&!* Trainor,Billman&Bennett,LLP,GeorgeF.GormleyandGeorgeF. '^"+ Gormley,P.C.wereonoppositiontothegovernment'spetitionfor '4#, awritofmandamusandoppositiontothegovernment'smotionto ( $- staydistrictcourtorderforrespondentsBrandenMorris,Jonathan )$. Hart,DarrylGreenandEdwardWashington. f*%/     CharlesW.Rankin,JamesL.SultanandRankin&Sultanon <+&0 briefforNancyGertner,UnitedStatesDistrictJudge. ,b'1   Jackie_Gardina_,VermontLawSchool,onbriefforChiefJudge ,8(2 WilliamG.Young,AmicusCuriae. -)3?   MichaelAvery,SuffolkLawSchool,onbriefforNational  LawyersGuild,MassachusettsAssociationofCriminalDefense  LawyersandJuvenileJusticeCenterofSuffolkUniversityLaw \ School,AmiciCuriae. 2   JuliaM.Wade,DavidJ.ApfelandGoodwinProcterLLPonbrief X forTheBostonBarAssociation,TheCommitteeforPublicCounsel . Services,andTheNationalAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers,   AmiciCuriae.   0    WilliamW.Fick,MartinF.Murphy,FoleyHoagLLP,Nadine `  Cohen,BarbaraJ.Dougan,Lawyers'CommitteeforCivilRights, 6   DennisCourtlandHayes,GeneralCounsel,VictorL.Goode,Assistant  \  GeneralCounsel,NAACP,CharlesJ.OgletreeandCharlesHamilton  2  HoustonInstituteforRace&JusticeonbriefforLawyers'   CommitteeforCivilRightsUnderLawOfTheBostonBarAssociation   andBostonBranchoftheNAACP,GreaterBostonCivilRights d  Coalition,CommunityChange,Inc.,JewishAllianceforLawand :  SocialAction,Women'sBarAssociation,MassachusettsBlackLawyers `  Association,CharlesHamiltonHoustonInstituteforRaceand 6 Justice,andMassachusettsBlackLegislativeCaucus,AmiciCuriae.   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  hh  SI @38631@SOctober7,_2005_   RHCx" @38631 @ R(  (* !+  &     8 \ XXdd8!*,X` XX*#OY ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. InSeptember2003,thedefendants  werechargedinfederaldistrictcourt,byasuperceding x indictment,withracketeering,18U.S.C.1962_(c_)(2000), $t racketeeringconspiracy,id.1962(d),conspiracytomurder,id.   1959(a)(5),andvariousassaultsandfirearmsoffenses.Two |  defendantswerefurtherchargedwithmurderinaidofracketeering. ( x  Id.1959(a)(1).Shortlythereafter,thegovernmentadvisedthat $  itwouldseekthedeathpenaltyagainstthelattertwodefendants   iftheywereconvictedofaspecificmurderchargedinoneofthe ,|  counts. (  ` InNovember2004,oneofthedefendantsmovedtodismiss  thesupercedingindictment,orinthealternativeforanorderto 0 supplementthenamescontainedinthemasterjurywheelcurrently , inuseinthedistrictcourt.Thisdefendantclaimedthatthejury  selectionprocessunderrepresentedAfricanAmericans.Atleast 4 someofthedefendantsareAfricanAmericanandalljoinedinthis 0 challenge.    ` ThedistrictjudgeheldevidentiaryhearingsinJanuary 8!" 2005andreceivedanexpertreportinApril2005.OnSeptember2, "4$ 2005,withtwoofthedefendantsscheduledfortrialonSeptember $& 19,2005,thedistrictjudgeissueda101pagedecisionandorder. <&!( Thejudgerejectedthedefendants'constitutionalattackbutfound '8#* thatthecurrentarrangementsinthisdistrictforjuryselection )$, wereunlawfulunderthestatute.UnitedStatesv.Green,F. @+&. _Supp.2d,2005WL2109114,at*22,*32(D.Mass.Sept.2,  2005). \  ` InMassachusetts,asinotherdistrictcourts,thejury X selectionprocessisgovernedbya"plan"adoptedbythedistrict   courtpursuanttotheJurySelectionandServiceAct("JSSA"or `  "thestatute"),28U.S.C.1861etseq.(2000).TheJSSA  \  containssubstantiverequirementsforsuchplansandspecifiesthe   proceduresforadoptingtheplans.Eachsuchplanmustbeadopted d  byavoteofthejudgesofthedistrictcourtandthenapprovedby `  aspecialreviewpanelcomprisedofthecircuitcouncilanda   designatedjudgeofthedistrictcourtinquestion.Id.1863(a). h ThecurrentMassachusettsplanwasrevisedin2000andispublicly d available.PlanforRandomSelectionofJurors(D.Mass.).   ` UndertheMassachusettsplan,trialsheldintheEastern l DivisionofMassachusettsasetofadjacentcountiesinthe h easternpartofthestatedrawjuriesstartingwithasourcelist  ofnamesofresidentsfromthesecounties.Plan2,5(c).A p  randomselectionofnamesfromthefullsourcelistisplacedina !l" masterjurywheel;alargenumberofnamesisthenperiodically "$ drawnatrandomfromthemasterwheelandsentjurysummonsesand t$& qualificationquestionnaires;andafterthereturnedquestionnaires  &p!( arevetted(e.g.,toexcludedisqualifiedpersons),theremaining '#* namesgointoa"qualifiedjurywheel"fromwhichtheneedednumber x)$, ofjurorsarerandomlydrawnandeventuallydispatchedtocourt $+t&. whenajuryorjuriesaretobeselected.Plan810;seealso  28U.S.C.1863,1864,1866(a),(b). \  ` Inthiscase,thedistrictjudgedeterminedfromthe X evidencethatalthoughAfricanAmericanscomprisedover6percent   oftheEasternDivisionpopulationinthelastseveralyears,just `  over3percentoutofallthosewhoreturnedquestionnaires(and  \  identifiedtheirrace)wereAfricanAmerican.Green,2005WL   2109114,at*7.Fortheperiod20012003inclusive,theaverage d  disparitywas3.66percent.Id.at*18.Inshort,African `  Americansappearedamongthequestionnaireanswerersabouthalfas   oftenastheirpresenceinthepopulationoftheEasternDivision. h  ` Outofdate(orotherwiseincorrect)addressesanda d lowerresponseratebyAfricanAmericansthaninthepopulationas  awholeappearedtobethemainreasonsforthedisparity.Green, l 2005WL2109114,at*20*21,*30*31.Somelettersarereturnedto h thejuryadministratororclerkmarked"undeliverable"(e.g.,the  addresseemoved).Id.at*20*21.Othersarenotreturnedbutno p  questionnaireisfiledbytheaddresseeacategorythatincludes !l" somepersonswhoneverreceivedasummonsandquestionnaireand "$ otherswhodidbutchosenottoreturnthequestionnaire.Id.at t$& *21.Althoughsuchmisdeliveriesandnonresponsesoccurinall  &p!( communities,thedatasuggestthattheyoccurredproportionally '#* moreofteninareasthatcontainedmorepoororminority x)$, inhabitants.Id.at*20*21. $+t&. #OY # #   ` Afterananalysisofexistingcaselawandstatutory  provisions,thedistrictjudgeconcludedthatnoSixthAmendment \ violationhadbeenproved,Green,2005WL2109114,at*22,butthat X thestatuterequiredsupplementationofthenamesoriginallydrawn   fromthemasterwheelinordertoremedyoramelioratetheracial `  disparity,id.at*27*28,*31*32.Thedistrictjudgedirected  \  thefederaljuryadministratortodrawanadditionalnamefromthe   masterwheel,butfromthesamezipcode,foreachnametowhoma d  questionnairewassentthatwasreturned"undeliverable";forany `  questionnairethatwasnotreturnedatallaftertwoattempted   mailingstothesameaddress,thesameremedywasordered.These h newlydrawnnames,totheextenttheirquestionnaireswere d returned,werethentobemergedwithoriginalpersonsdrawnwho  hadreturnedtheirquestionnaires.> #  1      ׀ l  ` Thisprocedurewoulddrawproportionatelymore  supplementalnamesfromzipcodeswheretheoriginalresponserate \ hadbeenlowwhichtheevidenceshowedwouldtendtohavealarger X thanaveragepopulationofAfricanAmericans.Green,2005WL   2109114,at*35.Theprocesswouldinturntendtoproducea `  blendedlistofpersonsfilingquestionnaireanswerscontaininga  \  greaterproportionofAfricanAmericansthantheoriginallist.   Thesupplementationremedyadoptedbythedistrictjudgethus d  soughttoincreasethelikelihoodofAfricanAmericans(andother `  groupssimilarlysituated)appearingonthefinaljuryinnumbers   morecloselyalignedwiththeirpresenceintheEasternDivision's h population. d  ` Afterobjectingtothisremedyasinconsistentwiththe  statuteandwiththecurrentplan,see28U.S.C.1867(e),the l governmentsoughtmandamusinthiscourttopreventthedistrict h court'suseofthesupplementedlist.Wegrantedastayofthe  orderandexpeditedourhearingonthemandamuspetition,making p  clearthatthedistrictcourtwasfreetodelaytheupcomingtrial, !l" whichithasnowdone.Issuesoflawarerevieweddenovo,Pornv. "$ Nat'lGrangeMut.Ins.Co.,93F.3d31,33(1stCir.1996);some t$& deferencemaybeaccordedtoacourt'sinterpretationofitsown  &p!( juryplan,butonlytoa"reasonableinterpretation."Cf.Nehmer  v.Veterans'Admin.,284F.3d1158,1160(9thCir.2002). \  ` Inthiscourt,thedefendantscontestourauthorityto X intervene.Theyarguethatthereisnofinaljudgmentinthiscase   andthatitdoesnotfitwithinthefewcategoriesofcriminal `  casesforwhichCongresshasallowedinterlocutoryappeals.See18  \  U.S.C.3731(permitting,e.g.,interlocutoryappealof   suppressionorders).Theshortansweristhatwellsettled d  precedenttreatsmandamusasanalternativemeansofsecuring `  interlocutoryreliefinthelimitedclassofextraordinarycases   wheretherequirementsformandamushavebeenmet. h  ` Themostfamiliartrack,socalled"supervisory d mandamus,"istraditionallyavailablewherejudicialpowerhasbeen  exceeded,thereisathreatofirreparableharm,andtheunderlying l orderisclearlyerroneous.UnitedStatesv.Horn,29F.3d754, h 769(1stCir.1994).Evenabsentsuchconditions,"advisory  mandamus"hassometimesbeengrantedinthiscircuit,UnitedStates p  v.Green,407F.3d434,43940(1stCir.2005),petitionforcert. !l" filed(U.S.Aug.12,2005)(No.05360),andelsewhere,e.g.,Inre "$ vonBulow,828F.2d94,97100(2dCir.1987),tosettlecritical t$& questionsoflawthataffectmultiplecasesandwarrantimmediate  &p!( resolution.? #  2       '#*  ` Ourcaseisaclassic"exceptional"instancejustifying  interlocutoryintervention.Thecentralissueisoneofjudicial \ authoritynamely,whetherthedistrictjudge'sactioncontravenes X orunlawfullysupplementsthejuryplanadoptedbythedistrict   courtasawholeandapprovedbythereviewpanel.See `  Schlagenhaufv.Holder,379U.S.104,110(1964).Asfor  \  irreparableinjury,Horn,29F.3dat769,thegovernmenthasno   readywaytoappealifthereisanacquittalandnostandingto d  appealifthereisaconviction.And,asweshallsee,the `  districtjudge'sorderclearlydepartsfromtheexistingjuryplan.    ` Further,thedistrictjudge'sdecisioneffectively h indictstheexistingplanasappliedtograndjuryandpetitjury d actionsinavastarrayofcriminalcases,pastandfuture.The  decisionhasalreadypromptedmotionsinotherpendingcases.In l statementsthatarepartoftherecord,thedistrictjudge'sorder h hasbeenendorsedbythechiefjudgeofthedistrictcourt,  suggestingthathe(andlikelysomeotherjudges)willfollowthe p  samecourse.Advisory,aswellassupervisory,mandamusisthus !l" whollyappropriate.@ #  3       "$  ` Turningtothemerits,webeginbyaskingwhetherthe  districtjudge'sordercomportswiththeexistingplanorwhether, \ ifnot,theordercanbejustifiedinthiscasebyclaimsthatthe X planisatoddswiththestatute.Concludingthattheanswerto   bothquestionsisno,ourdecisionthenexplainswhytheordermust `  beenjoinedevenifalegitimatelyamendedplandesignedtoimprove  \  ontheexistingonemightbepermissible.    ` Centraltothiscaseistherelationshipbetweentheplan d  andthestatute.Thestatuteprovidesapurposeandframeworkfor `  juryselectionplansandsomeofthemechanicaldetailfor   collectingjurors.Aplan,whichthestatuterequiresfromeach h district,providesadditionaldetailandmechanics,anditmustnot d conflictwiththestatute,28U.S.C.1863(a),butmaydifferfrom  districtcourttodistrictcourt(e.g.,astothesourceofnames l forthemasterwheelandthenumberdrawn,id.1863(b)(2)).Once h adopted,theplanisintendedtoprovideauniformprocedurefor  assemblingjurorsinthatdistrictcourtbindinguponeachdistrict p  judge.Seeid.1863;S.Rep.No.90891,at34(1967);H.Rep. !l" No.901076(1968),asreprintedin1968U.S.C.C.A.N.1792,1805.A #  4      ׀_ "$  ` Inthiscase,theplanpertinentlyprovidesthatthe  state'slocalresidentlistsconstitute"afaircrosssectionof \ thecommunity"thegroupingprescribedbythestatuteforjury X selectionandthatthenamesofthepersons"tobeconsideredfor   service...shallbeselectedatrandom"fromthelists.Plan `  _5(c)._ԀItalsoprovidesthattheselectionofnamesfromthesource  \  listandthenfromthemasterwheel(whicharetwoseparatesteps)   "must...insurethatthemathematicaloddsofanysinglename d  beingpickedaresubstantiallyequal."Id.7(a);seealso,e.g., `  DistrictofMainePlanIV,V.    ` Then,fromthenamessodrawn(firstfromthesourcelist h ofresidentsandthenfromthemasterwheel),theclerksendsa d summonsandqualificationform,Plan9(b),(c).Fromthe  returnedformsandthroughotherprocedures,somenamesareremoved l fordisqualification,exemptionorexcuse.Id.10.Underthe h statute,thenamesofpersonssoqualifiedconstitutea"qualified  jurywheel"fromwhichjurorsaredrawnatrandomasnecessaryfor p  grandjuriesandforarraysperiodicallysummonedtocourt(e.g., !l" forMonday,September19,2005)aspotentialpetitjurorsfor "$ trials.28U.S.C.1863(b)(8). t$&  ` Thedistrictjudge'sorderdepartsfromthisregimeby  providingthatanewnamechoseninthesupplementaldrawmustcome \ fromthesamezipcodeasanoriginaladdresseewhosequestionnaire X wasnotreturned.Thisviolatesthe"equalodds"requirementof   theplanbecausethesupplementaldraw,constrainedbythe `  preferencesforthoseincertainzipcodes,doesnotgiveequal  \  oddsofselectiontoeverynameinthemasterwheel.Indeed,if   theequaloddsrequirementweremet,theresultsofthe d  supplementaldrawwouldtendtoreflecttheverysamedemographics `  astheoriginalone.    ` Thedistrictjudgepointedtoadifferentprovisionof h theplan,namely,theauthorityinsection11forthecourtto d directafurtherdrawfromthemasterwheeltocreatea  "supplementalarray"tobeaddedtotheregulararraysummonedfrom l thequalifiedwheel.Buttheexpressedpurposeofsection11isto h addasmalllistofpotentialjurorswhenadditionalnamesare  needed"becauseofexcusedorincreasedjuryrequirements,"i.e., p  aninadequatenumberofqualifiedjurorsinaregulararray. !l" Nothinginthisprovisionauthorizesnewjurorsbecauseoflow "$ returnratesinaparticularzipcode. t$&  ` Further,whattheplanprescribesforashortageof  &p!( qualifiedjurorsissupplementationbyafurtherdrawfromthe '#* masterjurywheel,Plan11(d),andnotadrawonlyfrom x)$, identifiedzipcodeswithinthemasterwheel.Regardlessofthe $+t&. purposeofthesupplementalarray,theplanauthorizesadditions  onlythroughanew"equalodds"drawfromtheentiremasterwheel. \ Id.7(a).Thesuccessivenewdrawsdirectedbythedistrict X judge'sorderarenot"equalodds"drawsfromthewheelbutdraws   onlyfromindividualzipcodes. `   ` Evenwithoutregardtotheplan'sequaloddslanguage,  \  theorderfailsforadifferentreason.Asjustnoted,theplan's   mechanismprovidesforadditionaldrawsfromthemasterwheelonly d  inonespecificsituationadrawofasupplementalarray `  occasionedbyashortageofqualifiedjurorsinaregularly   selectedarray.Plan11(d).Aconsequentialenlargementofthe h basesforanewdrawamountstoadefactoamendment,evenif d performedbyanindividualjudge,anddoesnottherebyescapethe  statute'sproceduralrequirements;B #  5      ׀thefailureformallytoamend l theplanbyvoteofthewholecourtisnotadefenseofthepresent h orderbutitsvice.   ` Imaginethatthedistrictjudgeinquestionadoptedthis p  new,zipcodeorientedapproachandthatanotherjudgeinthe !l" districtinsistedonusingthepreexistingpractice.Quiteapart "$ fromthemechanicalcomplicationsnormallyanarrayissummoned t$& formultipletrialsbeforedifferentjudgesthiswouldresultin  somedefendantsgettingjuriesselectedunderoneregimeandothers \ underasignificantlydifferentone.Comparenote4,above X (quotinglegislativehistory).Alternatively,ifalljudges   informallyfollowedthedistrictjudge'slead,itwouldmerely `  emphasizethataplanamendmenthadbeenimproperlyimplemented  \  withouttheapprovalsrequiredbythestatute.    ` Certainlysomedetailsinjuryadministrationaretoo d  minortorequireinclusioninaplan;forinstance,the `  Massachusettsplandoesnotspecifythenumberofmailingstoa   nonrespondingaddresseeandthegovernmentdoesnotchallengethe h districtjudge'scontemplationofadditionalmailingstothesame d address.Buttheplandoesspecifytheuseofequaloddsdraws  fromthemasterwheelandthebasisuponwhichasupplementarydraw l canbeordered.Thechallengedportionofthedistrictjudge's h orderisnotaminoradjustmentofadministrationonamatterleft  unaddressedbytheexistingplan. p   ` Possiblyamajordeparturefromtheexistingplanbyone !l" judgemightbejustifiedifthatplanwereunconstitutionalorin "$ conflictwiththeJSSA.Suchasituationwouldcreateaconflict t$& betweenthesubstanceoftheplanandtheprocedureforaltering  &p!( it.Thegovernmentsaysthatinsuchacasetheconflictresolving '#* solutionwouldbetostaythetrialandseekaformalamendmentto x)$, theplanbythedistrictcourtasawhole.Cf.,e.g.,United $+t&. Statesv.Gordon,961F.2d426,431(3dCir.1992).Butwewill  assume,solelyforthesakeofargument,thatajudgemightdepart \ fromtheplanwherecompliancewouldcauseaconstitutionalor X statutoryviolation. Here,thedistrictjudgedidclaimthatthe   statutecompelledsuchadeparture.Itdoesnot. `   ` Thedistrictjudgerecognizedthatunderourprior  \  governingprecedenttheplan,withoutanysupplementaldrawings,   compliedwiththeSixthAmendment.Green,2005WL2109114,at*11 d  *22;seeUnitedStatesv.Royal,174F.3d1,1011(1stCir.1999). `  However,herdecisioninvokedastatutoryrequirementthatthe   districtcourtprescribe"someothersourceorsourcesofnamesin h additiontovoterlistswherenecessarytofosterthepolicyand d protecttherights"securedbythestatute(whichincludeboththe  faircrosssectionrequirementandequalaccessofcitizensto l considerationforserviceonjuries).Green,2005WL2109114,at h *27*30(citing28U.S.C.1863(b)(2)).Thedistrictjudgethen  deemedtheracialdisparityinqualifiednamesastriggeringthe p  statutorydutytosupplement.Id.at*30*32. !l"  ` Thisamountstosayingthatthecrosssectionlanguagein "$ thestatuteismoredemandingthantheconstitutionalcrosssection t$& holdings.YetthestatutorylanguagewasdrawnfromtheSupreme  &p!(  Court'sconstitutionalholdings,andthiscourt,Royal,174F.3dat '#* 6,likeothers,T #  6      hasheldthestatutetoimposeessentiallythe   sameobligation.Whetherornottherecordinthiscaseis \ factuallybetterdevelopedthanthatinRoyal,thedisparitiesare X ofthesamegeneralmagnitude,compareRoyal,174F.3dat1011,   withGreen,2005WL2109114,at*18,andRoyalbindsthispanel `  quiteasmuchasitbindsthedistrictjudge.Irvingv.United  \  States,162F.3d154,160(1stCir.1998),cert.denied,528U.S.   812(1999). d   ` Whatismore,the"inaddition"languageinsection `  1863(b)(2)isdirectedtothespecificationofthesourcelistsfor   themasterwheel.Thisisafunctionexpresslytobeperformedby h thedistrictcourtasawholethroughtheplan,seePlan5(b), d anditwasperformedwhenthatcourtfoundthattheMassachusetts  localresidentlistssatisfiedthestatute'srequirements(a l findingexpresslypermittedbythestatuteastotheMassachusetts h lists,28U.S.C.1863(b)(2)).Nothinginthe"inaddition"  languagehasanythingtodowithhownamesareselectedfromthe p  masterwheel. !l"  ` Incertaincaseswehaveupheldconvictionsdespite "$ deviationsfromajuryselectionplanwherethedeviationdidnot t$& frustratecoreconcernsofthestatute,specifically,random  selectionofjurorsandobjectivecriteriaforjuror \ disqualification.SeeUnitedStatesv.Savides,787F.2d751,754 X 55(1stCir.1986);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Tarnowski,429F.   Supp.783,79091(E.D.Mich.1977),aff'd,583F.2d903(6thCir. `  1978),cert.denied,440U.S.918(1979).Ourconcernhere,  \  however,isnotwiththerightsofanindividualpartyseeking   redressonappealbutwiththeuseofmandamustoassurethatthe d  districtcourtcomplieswithanexistingplaninaseriesoftrials `  yettobeheld.    ` Asafinalsourceofauthorityfortheorder,the h districtjudge'sdecisioncitesthelongrecognizedinherent d "supervisory"powerofthecourttomanageitsbusiness.Green,  2005WL2109114,at*32*33(citingBankofNovaScotiav.United l States,487U.S.250,254(1988)).Thecourt'ssupervisorypower h doesnotlicenseittoignoreanotherwisevalidexistingjuryplan  ortobypassthemechanismprovidedbystatutetoaltersuchplan. p  "Toallowotherwise'wouldconferonthejudiciarydiscretionary !l" powertodisregardtheconsideredlimitationsofthelawitis "$ chargedwithenforcing.'"BankofNovaScotia,487U.S.at254 t$& (quotingUnitedStatesv.Payner,447U.S.727,737(1980)).  &p!(  ` Nooneisentitledautomaticallytobetriedbyajuryof '#* personscomprisedofhisorherownrace,religionorgender. x)$, Taylorv.Louisiana,419U.S.522,538(1975);Barberv.Ponte,772 $+t&. F.2d982,997(1stCir.1985)(enbanc),cert.denied,475U.S.  1050(1986).Yetthereisassuredlycauseforconcern,asthis \ courtsaidsixyearsago,Royal,174F.3dat12,whereAfrican X Americandefendantshavebeenindictedformajorcrimes,andthe   proportionofblackswhoreturnjuryquestionnairesishalfthe `  percentagetobeexpectedfromtheirpresenceinthedivisionof  \  thedistrictconcerned.Thedistrictcourthasalwaysbeenfreeto   reviseitsjuryplanincompliancewiththestatute. d   ` Withoutdevelopingitsargumentindetail,thegovernment `  hasquestionedwhetherthedistrictcourt'sremedywouldcomport   withthestatuteevenifembodiedinaproperlyadoptedplan.But h whatplanthedistrictcourtasawholemightadoptisuncertain; d andwehaveexpeditedbothoralargumentandissuanceofthis  decisionbecauseoftheneedforapromptresolutionofthe l mandamuspetition.Thestatuteprovidesforthedistrictcourtas h awholeandthenthereviewpaneltoconsiderplanchangesinthe  firstinstance.28U.S.C.1863(a). p   ` Thewritofmandamusisgrantedandthedistrictcourtis !l" directednottoimplementparagraphs1and2ofitsremedialorder "$ enteredonSeptember2,2005.Thewritshallissueforthwith t$& withoutprejudicetopetitionsforrehearing.Nocostsaretobe  &p!( awarded. '#*  ` Itissoordered.