Opinion ID: 556583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court's Procedures for Impaneling the Jury

Text: 10 Broxton next urges reversal on the ground that the district court used an unfair method to select the jury. The struck jury method, 1 Broxton claims, deprived him of the opportunity to put[ ] the last juror in the box and to observe the chemistry of the jury cross-section at any particular time. Transcript at 8. Broxton maintains that jury selection must be conducted round by round. 11 The district court has broad discretion to determine the method of exercising peremptory challenges. See Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 408-10, 14 S.Ct. 410, 414-15, 38 L.Ed. 208 (1894). It suffices that the method chosen allows the defendant to make his peremptory challenges without embarrassment and does not intimidate him from exercising them. Id. at 408, 14 S.Ct. at 414; see also United States v. Smith, 891 F.2d 935, 938 (D.C.Cir.1989). 12 The method employed by the district court here did not lessen Broxton's ability to exercise his peremptory challenges without embarrassment or intimidation. Moreover, we have held that the defendant has no constitutionally protected right to exercise the final peremptory challenge. See United States v. Smith, 891 F.2d at 938. Thus, Broxton's objection to the method of jury selection is insubstantial.