OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS 

JOHN CORNYN 

August 28,200l 

The Honorable E. Bruce Curry 

District Attorney 

2 16th Judicial District 

Bandera, Gillespie, Kendall, Kerr Counties 

521 Earl Garrett Street 

Kerrville, Texas 78028 

Opinion No. JC-0405 

Re: Whether and when a district clerk must 

provide jury lists to litigants in civil and criminal 

trials (RQ-0353-JC) 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

You have asked this office a series of questions concerning when the district clerk must 

release jury lists to the parties in both civil and criminal actions. In examining the relevant statutes 

and the cases interpreting them, we find no controlling legal authority as to when the clerk may 

provide such information in either civil or non-capital criminal actions beyond the clear limitation 

that it be presented to both sides when the parties have announced ready for trial. See TEX. R. CIV. 

PROC. 224; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.01 (Vernon 1989).* We have not been directed to, 

and our research has not disclosed, “any prohibition to the District Clerk, in her discretion, providing 

this list to the parties at any time after the list is prepared.“2 The legislature and the courts, which 

have not spoken on this matter, have thereby effectively granted the district clerk, a constitutional 

officer, discretion in it. The ultimate management of either civil or criminal trials, of course, is in 

the hands of the presiding judge. 

Discretion granted to a public officer in the exercise of his or her functions is, of course, not 

unbounded. You have asked, in that regard, “If the District Clerk provides the jury list to one of the 

litigants, is it mandatory that the District Clerk provide the list to the other litigants at the same 

time?” Request Letter, supra note 2, at 2. While there appears to be no statutory directive in this 

regard, the district clerk must not show undue favoritism to any party. See, e.g., Mann v. Ramirez, 

905 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied) (actions of district clerk in improperly 

‘Article 34.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “No defendant in a capital case in which the 

state seeks the death penalty shall be brought to trial until he shall have had at least two days (including holidays) a copy 

of the names of the persons summoned as veniremen, for the week for which his case is set for trial. . . .” TEX. CODE 

GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 34.04 (Vernon Supp. 2001). 

*Letter from Honorable E. Bruce Curry, District Attorney, 2 16th Judicial District, to Honorable John Comyn, 

Texas Attorney General, at 2 (Feb. 21, 2001) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter]. 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 2 (JC-0405) 

excusing jurors for reasons stemming from personal relationship with corporate representative of 

party resulted in fundamentally unfair trial). 

Generally, the organization of petit juries in the district court is governed by chapter 62 of 

the Government Code. This is true in both civil and criminal cases, since article 33.09 of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure provides that “Jury panels, including special venires, for the trial of criminal 

cases shall be selected and summoned (with return on summons) in the same manner as the selection 

of panels for the trial of civil cases except as otherwise provided in this Code.” TEX. CODE GRIM. 

PROC. ANN. art. 33.09 (Vernon 1989). Depending on the county, an appropriate number of names 

to meet jury requirements will be drawn either from the jury wheel by the clerk and the sheriff or 

constable “in the presence and under the direction of the district judge,” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 

62.004(a) (Vernon 1998), or in counties which use a computer pursuant to section 62.011 of the 

Government Code “by random selection computer programming.” OFFICE OF COURT 

ADMINISTRATION, DISTRICT CLERK PROCEDURE MANUAL II-5 (1998). A plan for computerized jury 

selection pursuant to section 62.011 must “designate the district clerk as the officer in charge of the 

selection process and define his duties.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 62.011 (b)(4) (Vernon 1998); see 

Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-34 (1991). Section 62.012 of the Government Code provides: 

(a) When a justice of the peace or a county or district judge 

requires a jury for a particular week, the judge, within a reasonable 

time before the prospective jurors are summoned, shall notify the 

county clerk, for a county court jury, or the district clerk, for a justice 

or district court jury, to open the next consecutively numbered 

envelope containing a jury list that is in the clerk’s possession and has 

not been opened. The judge shall also notify the clerk of the date that 

the prospective jurors are to be summoned to appear for jury service. 

(b) On receiving the notice from the judge, the clerk shall 

immediately write on the jury list the date that the prospective jurors 

are to be summoned to appear and shall deliver the jury list to: 

(1) the sheriff, for a county or district court jury; or 

(2) the sheriff or constable, for a justice court jury. 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 0 62.012 (Vernon 1998). 

While the point at which the jury list is opened and delivered to the sheriff is the first point 

at which it would be possible for the clerk to permit access to this information to any person, section 

62.012 does not expressly authorize or require such access at that time. Rule 224 of the Texas Rules 

of Civil Procedure provides that “when the parties have announced ready for trial,” the clerk shall 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 3 (JC-0405) 

write the names of the week’s jurors on separate slips of paper, place the slips in a box, draw out (in 

the district court) twenty-four names, write them on two slips of paper, and present the slips to each 

party. TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 224. Similarly, article 35.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides 

that “When a case is called for trial and the parties have announced ready for trial, the names of those 

summoned as jurors in the case shall be called.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.01 (Vernon 

1998).3 There is therefore a final point - when the parties announce ready - at which, in both civil 

and criminal cases, the identities of potential jurors must be made known to the parties. The statutes 

are, however, silent as to whether this information may be provided to the parties at any earlier time 

after the jury list has been opened and delivered to the sheriff. We have discovered no statutory 

provision which would forbid the clerk, in the exercise of his or her discretion, from providing the 

parties with the list at any such time. We note that the district clerk is a constitutional officer, 

elected by the voters, TEX. CONST. art. V, 5 9, and as such is vested with much discretion in the 

operation of his or her office. 

As we understand, and as you suggest, parties would prefer to receive as much such 

information as far in advance of voir dire as possible, in order to aid them in the process of jury 

selection. See Request Letter, supra note 2 (Attached Brief at 3). We note that a similar question 

was posed in Attorney General Opinion C-239 (1964)’ in which this office was asked whether a 

criminal defendant in a misdemeanor case had a right of access to the list of prospective jurors for 

the county court prior to the date of trial, and if not whether the county judge had the discretion to 

permit the defendant such access. After reciting the statutory predecessor of Government Code 

section 62.012, and noting that the only express right of access of this sort was that granted to a 

capital defendant by the statutory predecessor of article 34.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 

the opinion noted that, while there was no absolute right of such access to the defendant, “the custom 

in most counties is to make the jury list available to any attorney who requests the same on Friday 

prior to the trial on Monday. We see no reason to upset this practice. . . .” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 

C-239 (1964) at 3. 

Attorney General Opinion C-239 accordingly decided that since “there is no provision in [the 

statutory predecessor to section 62.0121 prohibiting knowledge of the array to defendant, we are led 

to believe it was not meant by the Legislature to prohibit the practice of allowing attorneys to obtain 

a list of jurors. Policy in this regard should apply equally to prosecution and to defense counsel.” 

Id. Noting the power of the judge over the management of the case before him, the opinion 

concludes that “if the judge wishes to follow the custom of making the jury panel list available prior 

to the time of the trial, he may do so.” Id. at 4. The conclusion of Attorney General Opinion C-239 

remains sound. Therefore, in our view, while the district clerk must provide the jury lists when the 

3Your brief also inquires concerning the jury list referenced in article 35.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

However, that list, unlike the general jury lists we are considering, is only prepared “on the demand of the defendant 

or his attorney, or of the State’s counsel” by a shuffle of the general panel. TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.11 

(Vernon Supp. 2001). It is thereupon presented to both sides. Id. 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 4 (JC-0405) 

parties announce ready, the decision to provide the parties such lists in advance of that time is within 

the clerk’s discretion, subject to the direction of the judge presiding. The clerk must of course show 

no undue favoritism. See Mann, 905 S.W.2d at 275. While we have discovered no cases dealing 

with this matter, we are persuaded that were a clerk to provide jury lists to one party in either a civil 

or criminal matter and withhold such lists from the other party, a court would likely hold such action 

to be an abuse of the clerk’s discretion. 

You have also asked whether the clerk may disclose personal information that has been 

provided by jurors to the parties in either civil or criminal cases. In our view, two statutes are 

particularly relevant to your inquiry - section 62.0132 of the Government Code, which generally 

governs the gathering and dissemination of jury information, and article 35.29 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure, which limits the dissemination of such information as it pertains to jurors in 

particular criminal cases. 

Section 62.0132 of the Government Code directs the Office of Court Administration to 

develop and maintain a jury questionnaire accompanying the jury summons. “The questionnaire 

must require a person to provide biographical and demographic information that is relevant to 

service as a jury member . . . .” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 62.0132(c) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The 

questionnaire is to be completed and submitted “when the person reports for jury duty.” Id. 9 

62,0132(d). The information contained in such questionnaires “is confidential and is not subject to 

Chapter 552 [of the Government Code, the Public Information Act].” Id. 9 62.0132(f). Information 

under section 62.0132 is confidential with respect to third parties rather than litigants. “The 

information contained in a completed questionnaire may be disclosed to . . . a litigant and a litigant’s 

attorney in a cause of action in which the respondent to the questionnaire is a potential juror.” Id. 

8 62.0132(g)(3). 

While personal information concerning jurors serving in particular criminal proceedings is 

confidential pursuant to article 35.29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and may not be disclosed 

by the district clerk absent an order from the trial court, article 35.29 does not preclude the provision 

of such information concerning the general panel to counsel for the purpose of voir dire. Article 

35.29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: 

Information collected by the court or by a prosecuting 

attorney during the jury selection process about a person who serves 

as a juror, including the juror’s home address, home telephone 

number, social security number, driver’s license number, and other 

personal information is confidential and may not be disclosed by the 

court, the prosecuting attorney, the defense counsel, or any court 

personnel except on application by a party in the trial or on 

application by a bona fide member of the news media acting in such 

capacity to the court in which the person is serving or did serve as a 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 5 (JC-0405) 

juror. On a showing of good cause, the court shall permit disclosure 

of the information sought. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.29 (Vernon Supp. 2001). 

Article 35.29 raises two questions: first, whether its provisions are applicable to the parties 

in the case; and second, whether those provisions apply to the entire venire, or to the jury ultimately 

impanelled to sit in a particular case. At least one jurist has taken the view that article 35.29 

prohibits the release of such information to third parties, rather than to the parties in the litigation. 

Concurring in the judgment in Hooker v. State, 932 S.W.2d 712,717 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1996, 

no writ), Justice Burgess wrote, “I disagree [with the view that article 35.29 prohibits the parties 

from having access to personal information about jurors]. I read the statute to only prohibit 

disclosure of that information to third parties, except by application and a showing of good cause.” 

Id. at 7 17. However, the weight of authority is against this view. See id. at 7 16-l 7 (majority holding 

that good cause not shown for unsealing information because defendant’s trial counsel had “a couple 

of thoughts” regarding trial); see also Mayo v. State, 971 S.W.2d 464,465 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 

1998)’ rev’d on other grounds, 4 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Esparza v. State, 31 S.W.3d 

338, 340-41 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.). “Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 

35.29 cloaks jurors’ addresses in confidentiality and prevents disclosure of those addresses except 

upon a showing of good cause. . . . Plainly, article 35.29 is intended to protect jurors by keeping 

their addresses and other personal information confidential in the absence of a trial court order.” 

Mayo, 971 S.W.2d at 465. We therefore follow the weight of authority and conclude that personal 

information concerning the jurors in a particular criminal matter may not be disclosed by the district 

clerk to the parties absent an order of the trial court. 

While, as we note, the case law indicates that personal information of those who have sat on 

a particular criminal jury is confidential and unavailable even to the parties absent a court order, the 

cases are not generally concerned with release to the trial counsel of information on the general 

panel, but see Mayo, 97 1 S. W.2d at 465 (“If article 35.29 requires an accused to carry a burden of 

proving good cause before knowing whether venire members are truly challengeable as non-citizens, 

then the accused is saddled with a dilemma.” dicta); and the legislative history of article 35.29 

indicates that the statute was not intended to apply to access by counsel to such information during 

voir dire. 

In the public hearing before the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice concerning Senate 

Bill 12 - now article 35.29 - on March 16, 1993, the author, Senator Brown, described the 

purpose of the legislation as to prevent convicted criminals from obtaining personal information 

concerning the jurors in their trials: 

What this bill will do, it makes personal information available 

only to the lawyer in the case and specifically it’s designed so that if 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 6 (JC-0405) 

a criminal appeals his case after conviction, pro se . . . , then the 

personal information about the juror is not going to be a part of the 

record that is sent up for his consideration. . . . 

Hearings on Tex. S.B. 12 Before the Senate Comm. on Criminal Justice, 73d Leg., R.S. (Mar. 16, 

1993) (statement of Senator Brown) (audio tape available from Senate Staff Services Office). 

In reply to certain concerns raised concerning voir dire by Senator Royce West, Mr. Tom 

Crumpett of the District and County Attorneys’ Association specifically indicated that the intent of 

the legislation was not to prohibit the use of such information by attorneys in voir dire: 

Our primary intent on this was not to hamstring any of the 

jury selection process. I think Senator West asked the question. I 

think it’s fairly typical when you put together juror information cards 

that information is made available to both sides. . . . I was concerned 

originally that this bill would prevent us from doing that fact finding 

as far as both sides finding out as much as we could about the 

background and qualifications of potential jurors and I think that’s 

why it was revised several times so that now it only applies to those 

folks who finally are picked. . . . 

Id. (statement of Mr. Tom Crumpett, District & County Attorneys Ass’n) (audio tape available from 

Senate Staff Services Office). In response to these assurances, Mr. Chris Elliott of the Texas 

Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Association said: “I think our concerns have basically been addressed 

with this expression of intent that [the bill is] not going to affect the jury selection process and the 

information available.” Id. (statement of Mr. Chris Elliott, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Ass’n) 

(audio tape available from Senate Staff Services Office). 

A colloquy at second reading on April 1, 1993 between Senator Brown and Senator John 

Montford is to the same effect: 

Senator Montford: I want to be sure in the analysis. I think I agree 

with what you’re trying to do, but you’re not in any way attempting 

to restrict the rights of trial counsel to select and make their jury 

selection? 

Senator Brown: Absolutely not. 

Senator Montford: And they have full access to this inforrnation? 

Sometimes you need to know where somebody lives in order to make 

a determination for instance on a peremptory challenge. 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 7 (JC-0405) 

Senator Brown: And this does not interfere at all with the defense 

and prosecution seeking and getting that information. It’s just after 

the trial, what’s done with that information. 

Debate on Tex. S.B. 12 on the Floor of the Senate, 73d Leg., R.S. (Apr. 1, 1993) (audio tape 

available from Senate Staff Services Office). 

In the light of this legislative history, we conclude that article 35.29 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure does not apply to information regarding the general panel available to the trial counsel 

for the purpose of voir dire in a criminal case, and thus does not preclude the provision of such 

information to counsel for that purpose. 
The Honorable E. Bruce Curry - Page 8 (JC-0405) 

SUMMARY 

In both civil and criminal actions, jury lists must be disclosed 

to the parties when the parties announce ready for trial. Subject to the 

direction of the presiding judge the district clerk may, in his or her 

discretion, release such information to the parties at any time after the 

jury list has been delivered to the sheriff to summon the jurors. The 

clerk must not show undue favoritism, and may not provide the list 

to one party while withholding it from another. Information 

contained in jury questionnaires completed pursuant to section 

62.0132 of the Government Code, while confidential with respect to 

third parties, is available to the litigants in the cause of action in 

question. While personal information concerning jurors serving in 

particular criminal proceedings is confidential pursuant to article 

35.29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and may not be disclosed 

by the district clerk absent an order from the trial court, article 35.29 

does not preclude the provision of such information concerning the 

general panel to counsel for the purpose of voir dire. 

Attorney General of Texas 

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

NANCY FULLER 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

SUSAN D. GUSKY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

James E. Tourtelott 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee