Opinion ID: 1222727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for a New Jury Panel

Text: Ms. Toothman's first assignment of error is that the circuit court erred in refusing to grant Ms. Toothman's motion for a new jury panel because the her jury had no females. Ms. Toothman does not challenge the procedure used by the circuit court in selecting the master panel for petit jury selection. Rather, Ms. Toothman alleges that when the primary jury panel was all male with only one female as alternate, the circuit court should have added females to her panel. Mr. Brescoach argues Ms. Toothman is not entitled to a jury of any specific make-up; rather, she is entitled to have a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community. Mr. Brescoach points out that no allegation of impropriety concerning the selection process was made. W.Va.Code 52-1-1 (1986) et seq. describes a selection process for petit juries so that all persons selected for jury service [should] be selected at random from a fair cross section of the population of the area served by the court.... [Emphasis added.] The assignment of jurors to jury panel must be at random. W.Va.Code 52-1-9 (1986). See W.Va.Code 52-1-7(a) (1993) required each circuit to provide by order rules relating to the random drawing by the clerk of panels from the jury wheel or jury box for juries in the circuit ... courts. [Emphasis added.] It is also the stated policy of this State that [a] citizen may not be excluded from jury service on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, economic status or being a qualified individual with a disability. W.Va.Code 52-1-2 (1992). The Code also provides a procedure which is the exclusive means for challenging the jury selection process. See W.Va.Code 52-1-15 (1993). In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975), the United States Supreme Court noted that the policy of the United States [is] that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division where in the court convenes. 419 U.S. at 529, 95 S.Ct. at 697, 42 L.Ed.2d at 697, quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1861 (the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968). In this case, Ms. Toothman does not challenge the selection process for the jury in her case but does assign error for the result, an all male jury. In essence, Ms. Toothman asks this Court to find error in the circuit court's refusal to discriminate on the basis of gender. [1] Recently, the United State Supreme Court in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995) reiterated the basic principle of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination. 515 U.S. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 2482, 132 L.Ed.2d at 771-72, quoting, Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 291, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2748, 57 L.Ed.2d 750, 771 (1978). Such distinctions are inherently suspect regardless of `the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification.' 515 U.S. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 2482, 132 L.Ed.2d at 772, quoting, Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 494, 109 S.Ct. 706, 722, 102 L.Ed.2d 854, 882 (1989). Although Miller v. Johnson was concerned with racial classifications, these same principles apply to distinctions based on other immutable characteristics. In this case, Ms. Toothman presents no rational explanation for her motion seeking females on her jury and no compelling state interest. At best, Ms. Toothman argues that females might have been more sympathetic to her medical problems and awarded her more money for pain and suffering. However, no one has a right to a jury of a particular mix of people; rather, all persons should have a equal opportunity to serve on the jury. We find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Ms. Toothman's motion to add female jurors. If the circuit court had granted the motion, it appears likely that such an action would have given rise to a valid equal protection claim by Mr. Brescoach.