DAN MORALES 

ATrosNn GsNER*L 

@ffice of tfie Zlttornep @enera 

&date of ZlGexas 

Honorable T&n Curry 

Crimid District Attorney 

Tarrant County 

200 West Be&nap Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0201 

August 29.1991 

Opinion No. DM- 34 

Re: Division of authority over the selection of prospective jurors between a 

district clerk and a jury administrator 

(W-2178) 

Dear Mr. curry: 

You request our opinion on questions regarding the. Tarrant County 

Commissioners Court’s adoption of a system for the selection of prospective jurors 

and the creation of a position called “Jury Administrator-Bailiff.” You inform us 

that the commissioners court, by formal order adopted in 1989, instituted a juror 

service selection system that employs interchangeable juries -- called a “general 

panel - and an electronic or mechanical method of selecting names of persons to 

serve on the general panel.* Pursuant to section 62.011(b)(4) of the Government 

Code, tbe 1989 order of the commissioners court expressly designated the district 

clerk as “the officer in charge of the selection of jurors” and assigned the district 

clerk the following duties: 

.(l) to receive from the Elections Administrator for Tarrant 

County a list containing the names of all persons appearing on 

the county voter registration list to be used as the jury 

selection list for the following year; 

(2) to select the names of prospective jurors from the list as 

directed by the district judges with the aid of electronic or 

mechanical equipment; and 

‘1nterchmgeab1c juries may be impaneled to serve aU district, county, and statutory county 

courts pursuant to section 62.016 of the Government Code, which authorizes their use in counties with 

at least three district or crimii district courts. The use of electronic or mcchanicai equipment to 

select names of persons for jury service is authorized and governed by section 62.011 of the 

Government Code. 

P. 167 
Honorable Tim Curry - Page 2 (DM-34) 

(3) to deliver the list of names so selected to the bailiff of the 

central jury room. 

The order also provides that the judges shall appoint a bailiff “to be in charge of the 

Central jury room and the general panel.” The appointment of a bailiff to perform 

these duties is authorized by section 62.019 of the Government Code in counties 

that have opted to use interchangeable juries pursuant to section 62.016 of the 

Government Code, as is the case in Tarrant County. 

In April of 1990 the commissioners court approved the hiring of an individual 

to the position of “Jury Administrator.” Your letter implies that this action was in 

Wfillment of the 1989 order and that the jury administrator was therefore 

appointed pursuant to section 62.019.2 The incumbent in this position is appointed 

by and reports to the district judges and is assigned duties corresponding to those of 

the bailiff under section 62.019 -- e.g., the management of the jury room and the 

notification of prospective jurors by mail. See Gov’t Code 5 62.019(d) (delegating 

similar tasks to the bailiff of the central jury room). According to the job 

description for the position, the jury administrator also performs duties that 

arguably are associated with the selection of the names of prospective jurors, such as 

coordinating voter lists for jurors, disbursing payments to jurors, and coordinating 

the implementation and supervision of the “one day/one jury” system.3 

You ask whether the adoption of the juror service selection system and the 

appointment of the jury administrator with the duties described in the job posting 

infringe on the authority of the district clerk over the jury selection process. The 

2You thus refer to the position as “Jury Administrator-Bailiff.” The job posting and order 

authorizing the tilling of this position, however, refer to the position only as ‘Juy Administrator.” This 

suggests a basis other than section 62.019 for the hiring of the jury administrator, and our answers to 

your questions that follow will account for rhii contingency. 

3Accordiag to the job description for the position, the jury administrator performs the 

following functions (which include functions that may b-c assigned to a bailiff under section 62.019): 

(1) coordinates with personnel from Data Services to design a PC network; (2) coordinates with 

Elections personnel regarding voter lists for jurors; (3) coordinates with Tax Assessor-Collector 

regarding juror ,exemptions; (4) notities prospective jurors by computer mail outs; (5) disburses 

payments to jurors and coordinates with Auditor’s Oftice regarding fee disbursements; (6) manages 

the jury room; (7) supervises support staff; (8) meets with District Judges oo reports and 

management; (9) develops and monitors the budget; (10) coordinates the implementation and 

supervision of the one day/one jury system; (11) plans and develops software for one day/one jury 

system; (12) participates in long-range planning; and (13) performs all other related duties assigned. 

P. 168 
Honorable Tim Curry - Page 3 (DM-34) 

central issue raised by your request is whether the district judges may assign to the 

jury administrator any duties associated with the selection of prospective jurors 

when the county employs mechanical or electronic equipment as an aid in the 

selection process. We conclude that under the facts you describe, the district clerk 

is required by statute to be placed in charge of the juror selection process in Tarrant 

County and that the jury administrator may not be assigned specific duties regarding 

the selection of names of prospective jurors. 

Under section 62.011, a written plan must be submitted by the district judges, 

must be adopted (or rejected) by the commissioners court, and must comply with 

several specific requirements.4 Most important for our purposes, the plan must 

expressly “designate the district clerk as the officer in charge of the selection process 

and define his duties.” Id $62.011(b)(4). While it does not appear that the 

commissioners court has any discretion to amend the plan submitted by the district 

judges, see Attorney General Opinion M-911 (1971) at 11, the commissioners court 

does have final authority to adopt or reject the plan. Dirtrict Judges v. 

Commisioners Court of Collin County, 677 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1984, writ 

ref d n.r.e.). 

Section 62.011 does not otherwise prescribe the duties of the district clerk, 

but the courts have advised that 

in addition to carrying out the orders of the Commissioners 

Court, it would be a good practice for the clerk or his deputy to 

personally supervise the jury selection process in every way 

possible. 

Martinez v. State, 507 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 969 

(1974). The courts thus recognize that the intent of section 62.011 is to require the 

officials responsible for instituting an electronic or mechanical system of juror 

4Siice 1971, Texas law has required the names of prospective jurors in all counties to be 

selected manually by the use of the jury wheel. See Gov’t Code 59 62&N- 62.010; Acts 1971,62d Leg., 

ch. 905, at 27%‘. The county tax assessor-collector, sheriff, county clerk, and district clerk are each 

given discrete duties with regard to the operation of the jury wheel and the manual selection of names 

of prospective jurors. Gov’t Code 5s 62.001 - 62.010. Section 62.011 of the Government Code 

authorizes the selection of names of prospective jurors with the aid of electronic or mechaniul 

equipment as an alternative to the jury wheel method. The 1989 order of the Tarrant County 

Commissioners Court adopts this alternative for Tarrant County. 

p. 169 
Honorable Tim Curry - Page 4 (DM-34) 

selection to install the district clerk as its chief supervisory officer. Although section 

62.011 does not describe what the duties of the district clerk are in these 

circumstances, we think the statute clearly requires the district judges to 

recommend, and the commissioners court to adopt, a plan that enables the district 

clerk to exercise primary supervision of the juror selection process. See aLro Dktrict 

Judges v. Commissioners Court of CoIlin County, supra. The specific features of the 

plan are entrusted to the discretion of the .district judges and the commissioners 

court of the county. 

Turning to the position of jury administrator, we previously noted that the 

administrator was evidently hired to discharge the duties of the bailiff of the central 

jury room under section 62.019 of the Government Code. Subsection (b) of that 

section authorizes a majority of the district judges in a county with at least nine 

district courts to appoint, with commissioners court approval, a bailiff “to be in 

charge of the central jury room and the general panel.” An individual so appointed 

shall take care of the general panel and perform the duties in 

connection with the supervision of the central jury room and the 

general panel that are required by the district judges. [He] may 

notify prospective jurors whose names are drawn from the jury 

wheel or selected by other means provided by law to appear for 

jury service and may serve notices on absent jurors as directed 

by the district judge having control, of the general jury panel. 

(Emphasis added.) 

Gov’t Code 9 62.019(d). The bailiff or a deputy bailiff in such a county may also be 

authorized to summon prospective jurors; ordinarily, the sheriff performs this duty. 

Id $5 62.014(a), 62.013. 

The language of section 62.019 makes clear that the.bailiff is only authorized 

to exercise supervisory authority over the central jury room and the general panel 

and to notify prospective jurors and absent jurors (whose names have already been 

selected) if directed to do so by the district judge. We have found no authority that 

specifically authorizes the bailiff to exercise any duties with respect to actual 

selection of names of persons for service on the general panel. 

P. 170 
Honorable Tim Curry - Page 5 (DM-34) 

Any of the duties delegated to the jury administrator for Tarrant County that 

may relate to the selection of names of prospective jurors therefore cannot be 

premised on section 62.019 as part of the specific functions described in the statute. 

Nor do we think they can be justified as an implementation of the bailiffs 

supervisory duties over the general panel, since we have already seen that the 

legislature has committed these activities to other officers -- namely, the sheriff, 

county clerk, or district clerk. See Gov’t Code $55 62.001 - 62.010 (jury wheel 

method); 62.011 (electronic or mechanical equipment). 

We also observe that subsection (i) of section 62.016 of the Government 

Code, authorizing the use of interchangeable juries, specifically provides: 

Except as modified by this section and Section 62011, the law 

governing jury wheels applies in the counties that use general 

jury panels interchangeably in their county and district courts. 

(Emphasis added.) 

See also id. Q 62.017(h) (same rule in counties with two district courts). Thus, even if 

we were to conclude that the bailiff could perform some functions associated with 

the selection process, the bailiff would still be subordinate to the district clerk, who 

is made the “officer in charge of the selection process” by section 62.011. 

Finally, we must also consider whether the district judges or the 

commissioners court pursuant to some authority other than section 62.019 of the 

Government Code may assign the jury administrator a role in the selection process. 

We have located no statutory authority expressly authorizing the appointment of a 

jury administrator to occupy a role in the selection process. But see Gov’t Code 

9s 74.093(c) (authorizing district and statutory county court judges to adopt rules 

providing for any matter necessary to improve the administration and, management 

of the court system and its auxiliary services), ,74.101, 74.103 (authorizing 

appointment of court coordinator and staff); Local Gov’t Code 9 151.002 

(commissioners court duty to appoint deputies, assistants, or clerks for district, 

county, or precinct officers). In the absence of specific statutory authority, the 

appointment of a jury administrator may not serve to deprive the district clerk of the 

authority granted by the written plan adopted in accordance with section 62.011. 

See District Judges v. Commissioners Court of Collin County, supra (district judges 

may not, under guise of inherent or implied powers, appoint a “Jury Clerk” to be in 

charge of supplying jurors for jury trials when plan adopted under predecessor to 

p. 171 
Honorable Tim Curry - Page 6 YDM-34) 

section 62.011 designates district clerk as official in charge of the system); Aldrich v. 

Dallus Counfy, 167 S.W.2d 560, 565 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1942, writ dism’d w.o.j.) 

(commissioners court may not deprive county officer of authority which inheres in 

his office, nor require him to delegate such authority to another person). 

To summarize, because section 62.011 of the Government Code requires 

placing the district clerk in charge of the juror service selection process, neither the 

commissioners court nor the district judges may delegate to the jury administrator 

for Tarrant County specific duties relating to the selection of names of prospective 

jurors. 

SUMMARY 

In a county that employs electronic or mechanical 

equipment as an aid in the selection of names of prospective 

jurors pursuant to section 62.011 of the Government Code and 

also uses interchangeable juries pursuant to section 62.016 of the 

Government Code, the district clerk must be designated as the 

officer in charge of the selection process. Neither the 

commissioners court nor the district judges may delegate specific 

duties relating to the selection of names of prospective jurors to 

the bailiff of the central jury room appointed pursuant to section 

62.019 of the Government Code or to a jury administrator 

appointed by the district judges. 

Very truly yours, 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 172 
Honorable Tim Cuny - Page 7 (DM-34) 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret.) 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Steve Aragon 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 173