Answer:
Yes.
I feel that since only about 9% of the jurors are being appointed from the county, instead of the more representative 14%, this constitutes reasonable evidence that the jurors are not being randomly selected from the total population.
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
County population proportion = 14%
This implies that the country is supposed to have at least 1,386 * 14% = 194 of the jurors used by the court.
Evidence from records show that the county has only 122 of 1,386 = 9% (122/1,386)
This means that about 72 (194 - 122) jurors are not being appointed from the county.
And 72 represents about 5% of 1,386 (72/1,386). This number is more than half of those being appointed from the county or more than 50% or precisely 59%.
Therefore, this constitutes reasonable evidence that the jurors are not being randomly selected from the total population. The selection is not representative of the population characteristics.