1. May a court deny a fair cross-section challenge to the jury pool simply because the "absolute disparity" is less than 10%, thereby sanctioning the complete exclusion from jury service of minorities that comprise less than 10% of the population?

2. Was the court of appeals' decision that Petitioner failed to show "systematic exclusion" because his six-month study of the venire was too short contrary to Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), in which this Court found an eight-month study to be sufficient? And was it improper for the court of appeals to accord a "presumption of legitimacy" to the challenged jury selection system because the government had undertaken efforts at venire reform?

May a court deny a fair cross-section challenge to the jury pool simply because the 'absolute disparity' is less than 10%, thereby sanctioning the complete exclusion from jury service of minorities that comprise less than 10% of the population?