amount of disposable income, the fact that they possess sufficient disposable income to pay for a vacation in advance does not demonstrate that they belong to a different economic class from the other members of the venire panel. Moreover, even if we could place these venirepersons in an economically distinct class, the defendant did not attempt to establish that the representation of affluent individuals in the venire panels in this case was not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of affluent persons in the community. The defendant has not alleged the proportion of prospective jurors who were excused because of their prepaid vacation plans. See State v. Tillman, 220 Conn. 487, 498, 600 A.2d 738 (1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1207, 112 S. Ct. 3000, 120 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Neither did the defendant offer evidence
holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government holding that hardship need not be quantifiable in economic terms holding that defendant failed to meet second part of duren test when he did not even allege the proportion of jurors who were actually excused for economic hardship