 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Martin6/8/2000
subsection (i) was random and the calling of prospective jurors for voir dire under subsection (iii) was random. However, Martin argues random selection procedures were not employed in assigning jurors to panels as required by subsection (ii), because Williams County did not randomly pick jurors for a jury panel from the random list, but instead called jurors for service sequentially in the order of the randomized list.
[ ] Standard 3, which Martin relies on, does not specifically require counties to randomize twice, i.e., randomly pick the jury panel from the already randomized jury pool list. The North Dakota Jury Selection Plan itself is more specific in its description of the juror selection process. It provides in part, "the randomized master list of prospective jurors should be used sequentially from the top of the list to the bottom." Williams County closely followed this procedure by calling jury panels sequentially from the randomized master list by starting at the top and going to the bottom.
[ ] We recently traversed similar terrain in Torgerson. Torgerson challenged whether Burleigh County's jury selection process was random. We affirmed Torgerson's conviction because no prejudice or systematic exclusion was demonstrated to establish "a substantial failure to comply with [Chapter 27-09.1]." Id. at 16; see N.D.C.C. § 27-09.1-12(2). Neither has Martin presented facts that show a cognizable group was excluded in jury selection. While Martin points to the fact significantly more women than men were on the jury panel, he offers no evidence to demonstrate a link between taking jury panels sequentially from the randomized master list and the exclusion of men from the panel. See Torgerson, at 11 (stating "`appellant offered no evidence below showing a link between ownership of a telephone at one's residence and membership in the classes appellant asserts were excluded'") (quoting Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1395, 1399 (8th Cir. 1989)).
[ ] The Williams County process specifically complies with the North Dakota Jury Selection Plan; it is also numerical and there is no systematic exclusion of a protected group. See Torgerson, at 15. Martin has failed to establish "a substantial failure to comply with [Chapter 27-09.1]." See N.D.C.C. 27-09.1-12(2).
[ ] We affirm.
[ ]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Dale V. Sandstrom
William A. Neumann
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Page 1 2 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|