conclusion that plain (2000); Negrón, 113 F.3d at 1571 (11th Cir.) (plaintiffs failed to establish first Gingles precondition when Hispanics did not “constitute a majority of potential voters”) ; Sanchez v. Colorado, 97 F.3d 1303, 1314 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting that “satisfaction of the first precondition requires plaintiffs show a majority-Hispanic district is feasible”), cert, denied sub nom. Colorado v. Sanchez, 520 U.S. 1229, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1028 (1997); McNeil v. Springfield Park Dist., 851 F.2d 937, 945 (7th Cir. 1988) (first Gingles precondition requires a minority group to have a “voting age majority” of population), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1031, 104 L. Ed. 2d 204 (1989). The issue is unresolved in two circuits. Metts v. Murphy, 363 F.3d 8, 11 (1st Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis changed); Romero, 883 F.2d at 1424
holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage holding we are thus unwilling at the complaint stage to foreclose the possibility that a section 2 claim can ever be made out with a minority population of 21 percent holding that objection made at directed verdict stage and in motion for new trial were timely holding that a valid waiver of counsel at an early stage of the proceeding does not continue in effect through a subsequent stage holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff