Opinion ID: 2195206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Challenge.

Text: In his first two assignments of error, Sanders asserts that the district court erred in denying him access to information regarding individuals called for jury service and in ultimately denying his challenges to the jury selection process. As noted below, Sanders' challenge to the constitutionality of § 25-1628 must be deemed a facial challenge. Further, his challenge under § 25-1637 is properly limited to the manner in which the jury selection process was carried out as reflected in his case. We conclude that Sanders failed to establish any constitutional violation or any failure to follow statutes in the jury selection process and that therefore, the district court did not err in denying his challenges. We further conclude that the district court did not err in denying Sanders access to additional juror information because Sanders did not demonstrate that such information was necessary for evaluation of his challenges. [6] We have described a facial challenge as a challenge to a statute, asserting that no valid application of the statute exists because it is unconstitutional on its face. State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310, 315, 640 N.W.2d 1, 6 (2002). A facial challenge is contrasted to a challenge to a statute as applied to the individual. See, e.g., Van, supra ; State v. VanAckeren, 263 Neb. 222, 639 N.W.2d 112 (2002). At the time Sanders challenged the constitutionality of § 25-1628, no trial date had been set, and it was uncertain which master jury list would eventually be applied to his trial. The master jury list compiled pursuant to the manner prescribed in § 25-1628 had not in fact been applied to Sanders, and therefore, the proper consideration of Sanders' motion challenging the constitutionality of § 25-1628 is limited to a facial challenge. Regarding Sanders' facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 25-1628, we note that this court has previously rejected a challenge to § 25-1628 and the general statutory scheme for jury selection. State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 934, 492 N.W.2d 32 (1992). Garza involved the statute under review pursuant to which voter registration and licensed driver lists serve as the source for the master jury list. In Garza, we stated that `[i]t is difficult to conceive of a fairer or more practical method of selecting jurors than that used in Nebraska.' 241 Neb. at 954, 492 N.W.2d at 46-47, quoting with approval State v. Gutierrez, 187 Neb. 383, 191 N.W.2d 164 (1971). [7] We read Sanders' constitutional challenge to § 25-1628 as an assertion that the statute violates the fair-cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment. See, Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S. Ct. 664, 58 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1979); Garza, supra . In Duren, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that in order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment as to venires, a defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community, (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community, and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. The U.S. Supreme Court described systematic exclusion as exclusion inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized. 439 U.S. at 366. Duren involved a constitutional challenge to venires from which juries were selected, whereas Sanders' challenge in this case is a challenge to § 25-1628 and the method of preparing master jury lists. As courts elsewhere have done, we logically extend and apply the fair-cross-section concepts of Duren to Sanders' challenge to the preparation of the master jury list pursuant to § 25-1628. See, similarly, State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wash. 2d 222, 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (applying Duren standards in challenge to master jury list); People v. Currie, 87 Cal App. 4th 225, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 430 (2001) (applying Duren standards and stating that Sixth Amendment rights apply at every stage of jury selection process, including compilation of master list of potential jurors and selection of venires from that list). Contrary to Sanders' claims that minorities were underrepresented, the evidence showed that minorities on the master list were fairly represented in relation to the community. In addition, the evidence presented regarding Lancaster County's procedures for calling jurors from the master jury list failed to show exclusion of minorities much less systematic exclusion. Sanders' evidence did not show that § 25-1628 violated the fair-cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment or that there is no valid application of § 25-1628. We conclude that the court did not err in rejecting Sanders' constitutional challenge to § 25-1628. Sanders also asserted a challenge under § 25-1637. Section 25-1637(1) provides: A party may move to stay the proceedings, to quash the entire panel, or for other appropriate relief on the ground of substantial failure to comply with Chapter 25, article 16, in selecting the grand or petit jury. Such motion shall be made within seven days after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds for such motion, and in any event before the petit jury is sworn to try the case. [8] By its term, § 25-1637(1) provides that a party may move for various forms of relief based on a failure to comply with chapter 25, article 16, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, where such failure manifests itself in connection with selecting the grand or petit jury. It is a familiar canon of statutory construction that in construing a statute, a court must attempt to give effect to all of its parts, and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless. State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505, 675 N.W.2d 372 (2004). Given the presence of the phrase in selecting the grand or petit jury, we determine that a motion brought by a party under § 25-1637(1) must be triggered by a perceived failure to comply with chapter 25, article 16, as evidenced by the selection of a particular grand or petit jury. There is no indication of the use of a grand jury in this case and the specific jury which ultimately heard this case was not yet in the process of being selected when Sanders filed his motion. As such, Sanders' motion made under § 25-1637 was premature. Therefore, we conclude that the court did not err in rejecting Sanders' challenge under § 25-1637. Sanders also asserts that the district court erred in denying his request for discovery of additional information regarding jurors called for jury service. The district court in this case concluded that pursuant to § 25-1635, such information could not be disclosed except for good cause and that good cause had not been demonstrated. The district court did not err in these determinations. Section 25-1635 provides as follows: It shall be unlawful for a jury commissioner or the officer in charge of the election records, or any clerk or deputy thereof, or any person who may obtain access to any record showing the names of persons drawn to serve as grand or petit jurors to disclose to any person, except to other officers in carrying out official duties or as herein provided, the name of any person so drawn or to permit any person to examine such record or to make a list of such names, except under order of the court. The application for such an order shall be filed in the form of a motion in the office of the clerk of the district court, containing the signature and residence of the applicant or his [or her] attorney and stating all the grounds on which the request for such order is based. Such order shall not be made except for good cause shown in open court and it shall be spread upon the journal of the court. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class IV felony. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the judge or judges in any district may, in his [or her] or their discretion, provide by express order for the disclosure of the names of persons drawn from the revised key number list for actual service as grand or petit jurors. We agree with the district court that Sanders' request for discovery in this case can be considered an application for an order requiring disclosure of potential juror names under § 25-1635. We also agree that such an order shall not be made except for good cause shown. We note for completeness that § 25-1635 elsewhere provides that the judge or judges in any district may, in his [or her] or their discretion, provide by express order for the disclosure of the names of persons drawn from the revised key number list for actual service as grand or petit jurors. However, because Sanders requested the information pursuant to the first portion of § 25-1635, the present case is controlled by the first portion of the statute wherein good cause must be shown and not under the last portion of § 25-1635 wherein judges may provide for disclosure in their discretion. Section 25-1628 is limited to preparation of the master jury list, and therefore Sanders' constitutional challenge to § 25-1628 was limited to preparation of the master jury list. It follows that production of the additional information Sanders sought concerning jury selection procedures after the compilation of the master jury list was not warranted. We further note that whether or not the requested information would be relevant to a proper challenge under § 25-1637, as discussed above, Sanders' motion made under § 25-1637 was premature, and therefore good cause for discovery was not shown. We conclude that the court did not err in rejecting Sanders' request under § 25-1635 for discovery of additional information regarding jurors called for service.