Opinion ID: 1683460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: history of the drawing, summoning, selection, and empaneling of juries in alabama

Text: Alabama has for many years statutorily regulated the procedures for drawing, summoning, selecting, and empaneling both grand and petit juries in criminal cases. See Title 12, Chapter 16, Code 1975, § 12-16-1 through § 12-16-233. Of particular significance, insofar as this particular case is concerned, is the procedure provided for by Code 1975, § 12-16-100: § 12-16-100. Drawing, selection and empaneling of juries in criminal cases Generally. (a) In every criminal case the jury shall be drawn, selected and empaneled as follows: Upon the trial by jury in the circuit courts of any person charged with a felony, including a capital felony, a misdemeanor, or violation, the court shall require a strike list or lists to be compiled from the names appearing on the master strike list as established in section 12-16-74. In compiling the list or lists, names of qualified jurors may be omitted on a nonselective basis. A strike list shall be furnished for the trial of any case at hand and a copy thereof given to all parties. The jurors whose names appear thereon shall be brought into open court, the case shall be called and in the presence of the district attorney and the defendant and his attorney, the jurors shall be examined on voir dire for the trial of the case at hand. After the conclusion of the voir dire examination and the removal from the strike list of the names of those jurors who were challenged or excused for good reason, the district attorney shall be required first to strike from the strike list the name of one juror, and the defendant shall strike one, and they shall continue to strike off names alternately until only 12 jurors remain on the strike list and these 12 jurors thus selected shall be the jury charged with the trial of the case. If any defendant shall refuse to exercise a strike to which he is entitled, then the judge presiding shall exercise that defendant's strike for him. The number of names appearing on the strike list upon commencement of striking, unless a lesser number is agreed to by the parties, shall not be less than 36 if the offense charged is a capital felony nor less than 24 if the offense charged is a felony not punished capitally nor less than 18 if the offense charged is a misdemeanor or violation. In the event the list of competent prospective jurors is reduced to fewer than the number required by this subsection, the court shall add prospective jurors in the manner prescribed in section 12-16-76. No special venire shall be ordered, drawn, or summoned for the trial of any person indicted for a capital felony.    ... (Acts 1919, No. 715, p. 1039; Code 1923, § 8641; Code 1940, T. 30, § 60; Acts 1981, No. 81-788, p. 1381, § 5; Acts 1982, No. 82-221, p. 267.) An alternate plan is authorized by the provisions of § 12-16-145 and § 12-16-146, and this Court's Advisory Committee on Criminal Procedure has recommended a procedure that substantially follows the procedures set forth in § 12-16-100. See Proposed Revision with Commentary, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, January 1983, Rule 18.4. Since the adoption by the State of a separate procedure for the selection of jurors in criminal cases, many attacks have been made on the procedure. The one which received the most attention, however, was Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965). Other challenges have centered around the unequal number of peremptory challenges given the state in some counties, but not in others, [2] and several challenges were made involving individual jury lists, in which claims of racial discrimination were advanced. [3] In 1978, the Alabama legislature adopted Act No. 594, [4] a comprehensive act which provided for the qualifications and selection of jurors, and which revamped the jury system in Alabama. With the adoption and implementation of this Act, the attacks upon the jury selection process, either by separate lawsuits, or in individual cases, significantly decreased. For a historical account of this Act, see O'Leary v. State, 417 So.2d 219 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), aff'd, 417 So.2d 232 (Ala.1982), cert. den., 463 U.S. 1206, 103 S.Ct. 3536, 77 L.Ed.2d 1387 (1983). Sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 594, now codified as Code 1975, § 12-16-55 and § 12-16-56, respectively, read as follows: § 12-16-55. Declaration of policy. It is the policy of this state that all persons selected for jury service be selected at random from a fair cross section of the population of the area served by the court, and that all qualified citizens have the opportunity, in accordance with this article, to be considered for jury service in this state and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. (Acts 1978, No. 594, p. 712, § 1.)    § 12-16-56. Discrimination prohibited. A citizen shall not be excluded from jury service in this state on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or economic status. (Acts 1978, No. 594, p. 712, § 2.) These two Code sections are significant when a trial court is faced with a Batson or Jackson challenge. We believe that the Legislature intended, in adopting this public policy, that our trial juries should be selected from a list which contains a fair cross section of the area served by the court, and that any form of discrimination against a particular juror on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status is prohibited, and if liberally interpreted to apply to the State's use of peremptories, the state policy is not inconsistent with Batson or Jackson requirements. In fact, in Jackson, this Court discussed the principles of Batson citing both state and federal lawregarding the use of peremptory challenges by the state to exclude from jury service all blacks on the venire. This Court opined: The most compelling of the issues raised by Jackson is whether his equal protection rights were violated when the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to strike all ten of the prospective black jurors from the venire. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 [90 L.Ed.2d 69] (1986), changed a defendant's burden of proof on the issue of the prosecution's using peremptory challenges to systematically exclude blacks from serving on the jury. The much more stringent burden of Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 [85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759] (1965), was in effect at the time of defendant's trial, and the issue before us is whether a rule similar to the rule announced in Batson should be applied to this defendant's trial. We hold that a rule like the rule which the United States Supreme Court announced in Batson v. Kentucky, supra (that `a defendant may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant's trial,' 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-23), is to be applied to Jackson's trial. In Jackson, this Court noted the criticism that had been leveled against the decision in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), and noted that several state courts had found that their state constitutions required a lesser burden on a defendant to prove purposeful discrimination than that required by Swain. The Court cited the cases of State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984); People v. Thompson, 79 A.D.2d 87, 435 N.Y.S.2d 739, (1981); State v. Crespin, 94 N.M. 486, 612 P.2d 716 (Ct.App.1980); Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 387 N.E.2d 499, cert. den., 444 U.S. 881, 100 S.Ct. 170, 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979); People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978). 516 So.2d at 771-772. This Court, in Ex parte Jackson, specifically stated: We particularly note the holding of the Florida Supreme Court in Neil, supra : `Article I, section 16 of the Florida Constitution guarantees the right to an impartial jury. The right to peremptory challenges is not of constitutional dimension. The primary purpose of peremptory challenges is to aid and assist in the selection of an impartial jury. It was not intended that such challenges be used solely as a scalpel to excise a distinct racial group from a representative cross-section of society. It was not intended that such challenges be used to encroach upon the constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury. As did the New York, California, and Massachusetts courts, we find that adhering to the Swain test of evaluating the peremptory challenges impedes, rather than furthers, article I, section 16's guarantee. We therefore hold that the test set out in Swain is no longer to be used by this state's courts when confronted with the allegedly discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.' 457 So.2d at 486. Although we know that the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Batson v. Kentucky is to be applied retroactively, this Court does not need to await revelation from the federal judiciary when our own state constitution also guarantees to a criminal defendant the equal protection of the laws. Sections 1, 6, and 22, Ala. Const.1901, combine to guarantee equal protection of the laws. City of Hueytown v. Jiffy Chek Co., 342 So.2d 761 (Ala.1977). Analysis of equal protection issues under the United States Constitution is equally applicable to those same issues under the Alabama Constitution. Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So.2d 115 (Ala.1981). The doctrine of equal protection of the laws requires that the guarantee of trial by an impartial jury not be illusory. The defendant Jackson was under the Swain burden when he attempted to show the prosecution's alleged discriminatory use of its peremptory strikes. This was too great a burden. Our state constitution requires that Jackson be entitled to test the prosecution's use of its peremptory strikes under a rule similar to the one set forth in Batson v. Kentucky .... This Court then spelled out the procedure which must be followed once a prima facie showing is made by an accused: Once the defendant has made a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, then the prosecution must come forward with valid non-racial reasons for its strikes. The Florida Supreme Court has given an illustration of the prosecution's burden: `The reasons given in response to the court's inquiry need not be equivalent to those for a challenge for cause. If the party shows that the challenges were based on the particular case on trial, the parties or witnesses, or characteristics of the challenged persons other than race, then the inquiry should end and jury selection should continue. On the other hand, if the party has actually been challenging prospective jurors solely on the basis of race, then the court should dismiss that jury pool and start voir dire over with a new pool.'  Neil, 457 So.2d at 487. No merely whimsical or fanciful reason will suffice as an adequate explanation. In light of the circumstances of the case, the trial court must use its discretion in determining whether the prosecutor's reasons are adequate. (Emphasis added.) In Jackson, the prosecutor was not required to come forward with race-neutral reasons. In this case, the trial court did, [o]ut of perhaps more caution than anything else, require the State to explain why the particular persons were selected for peremptory strikes, so this case is in a different procedural posture. In Jackson, the case was remanded to allow the State to present race-neutral reasons, if it could. The mandate of Jackson was not available to the trial court in this case at the time it found that the State had met its burden; therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the trial judge should be given another opportunity to examine his findings in light of the requirements of Batson and Jackson. [5] Based upon this record, we could reverse this case, as some state courts have reversed similar cases, and order a new trial, [6] or we could affirm the judgment on the ground that the state's race-neutral reasons were sufficient. [7] We believe, however, that justice requires that we remand the case to give the trial court an opportunity to review again the sufficiency of the state's race-neutral reasons, under the guidelines we set out in this opinion.