Opinion ID: 1118488
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the superior court err by using the struck jury method of jury selection?

Text: Van Huff first argues that the superior court abused its discretion by using the struck jury method of jury selection. He argues that the struck jury method is inconsistent with Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 47(d) because that rule provides for the exercise of peremptory challenges as to jurors in the box, and under the struck jury method peremptory challenges are exercised before jurors are seated in the box. [1] He also claims that the struck jury approach limited his control over the selection of jurors, and that he was improperly forced to exercise all of his peremptory challenges. [2] Although not a constitutional right, [t]he persistence of peremptories and their extensive use demonstrate the long and widely held belief that peremptory challenge is a necessary part of trial by jury. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219, 85 S.Ct. 824, 835, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The method for exercising peremptory challenges depends upon the method of jury selection. The Second Circuit discussed the traditional jury box and struck jury selection methods in United States v. Blouin, 666 F.2d 796 (2d Cir.1981): Under what might be called the jury box system, twelve members of the array are selected by lot to enter the jury box; counsel for each side then exercise challenges for cause and their allotted number of peremptory challenges, in some prescribed pattern of alternation, against those seated in the jury box and against those drawn to replace any of the first twelve who have been challenged. When both sides have either used or waived their allotted challenges, the twelve members of the venire then in the jury box become the petit jury. Under the struck jury system, an initial panel is drawn by lot from those members of the array who have not been challenged and excused for cause; the size of this initial panel equals the total of the number of petit jurors who will hear the case ..., plus the combined number of peremptories allowed to both sides... . Counsel for each side then exercise their peremptory challenges, usually on an alternating basis, against the initial panel until they exhaust their allotted number and are left with a petit jury of twelve. Id. at 796-97. The struck jury method has its roots in ancient common law heritage, and is now available in many states for both criminal and civil cases. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. at 217-18, 85 S.Ct. at 834-35. We reject Van Huff's argument that the struck jury method is inconsistent with Rule 47(d). That rule provides that [a] party who waives peremptory challenge as to the jurors in the box does not thereby lose the challenge but may exercise it as to new jurors who may be called. While this rule seems to be directed to the jury box method of choosing jurors, for it refers to the replacement of a challenged juror in the box by another potential juror, the rule does not require usage of the jury box method. [3] Since Rule 47(e) gives the trial court discretion to set procedures for the exercise of peremptory challenges, that rule must not be read to prohibit usage of the struck jury method. We also reject Van Huff's argument that the struck jury method limited his control over the selection of jurors. Although the jury box method allows more control over the rejection of specific jurors in the petit jury, the struck jury method better allows a party to shape an entire jury. By permitting full comparative choice among a panel of twenty-eight prospective jurors, the `struck jury' system lets the parties make the most effective use of their challenges, in the sense that through their choices they are able to determine from the initial panel not only who will not serve but also who will serve as the petit jury. Blouin, 666 F.2d at 798. See also United States v. Sams, 470 F.2d 751, 754 (5th Cir.1972) (It is difficult to conceive of a fairer method of giving the defendant an opportunity to make a full choice of the range of the venire of 32 persons... .); Swain, 380 U.S. at 217-18, 85 S.Ct. at 834-35 (Since striking a jury allowed both sides a greater number of challenges and an opportunity to become familiar with the entire venire list, it was deemed an effective means of obtaining more impartial and better qualified jurors.). Because the struck jury method is, overall, at least as effective as the jury box method in terms of selecting the jury as a whole, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in using the struck jury method. Van Huff's final argument, that he was improperly forced to exercise all of his peremptory challenges, lacks merit. The struck jury method does not require a party to exercise all of its peremptory challenges. If one party does not exercise all of its challenges, resulting in more jurors than are needed, the judge may choose a jury from the potential jurors not challenged. See United States v. Ricks, 802 F.2d 731 (4th Cir.1986).