Opinion ID: 458191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Algoma's Challenge to the Jury Selection Process

Text: 28 Algoma also claims that it was unduly prejudiced by C & O and Wire and Supply's participation in the jury selection process before their summary judgment dismissals. 11 While Burpo received six peremptory challenges, Algoma received three and C & O shared three with Commercial Wire. 29 This question about improper jury selection procedure in multiparty suits involves whether the trial judge engaged in an abuse of his undeniably broad discretionary powers. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1870; Fedorchick v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 577 F.2d 856 (3d Cir. 1978). Algoma is able to establish no clear ground of prejudice with respect to this issue. The other two parties were then involved in the suit only for purposes of contribution to Algoma. If Algoma were found not liable, they would not be liable in contribution. They thus had strong reason not to be antagonistic during the trial proceedings. We accordingly find no merit in Algoma's position in this respect. 30