Opinion ID: 877465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: improper empanelling of jury panel

Text: By Issue F, covered in the omnibus holding of the majority opinion in Part IV, the defendant claims he was deprived of his right to have a jury that was properly selected and empanelled. In Coleman I, 579 P.2d 732, the majority held against him. I dissented on this issue, 579 P.2d 754-756, and for this reason alone, I would grant defendant a new trial. The majority has cut real corners and did not reach the real issue in deciding this issue in Coleman I, and for this reason, I would again review it by application of the Sanders criteria. It seems that all the majority is concerned about is whether there were 12 jurors present to try the case and not how the 12 jurors happened to be there in the first place. In my dissent, I pointed out the improper procedures used in calling in the panel of jurors, of which at least some of the 12 jurors were called in the manner described.