Opinion ID: 1984531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Delaware Jury Selection and Service Act

Text: Celotex argues that the utilization of any jury selection procedures which contravene any provision of the Delaware Jury Act is reversible error per se. [12] That argument is contrary to the express and unambiguous language of the statute. Even if the procedures being challenged are admittedly departures from the provisions of the statute, this Court must determine whether those departures constituted a substantial failure to comply with the Delaware Jury Act. 10 Del.C. § 4512(b). The issue of what constitutes a substantial failure to comply with the Delaware Jury Act is a question of first impression before this Court. However, the Delaware Jury Act was patterned after the federal Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861 et seq. (the federal Jury Act). [13] See State v. Robinson, Del.Super., 417 A.2d 953 (1980). We have found the relevant federal precedents particularly didactic in construing the analogous provisions of the Delaware Jury Act. The Delaware Jury Act is intended to establish effective safeguards against impermissible forms of discrimination and arbitrariness and to provide litigants with jury pools that represent a fair cross section of the community. Compare United States v. Evans, 526 F.2d 701, 706 (5th Cir.1976) (analyzing the objectives of the federal Jury Act). The declaration of policy in the Delaware Jury Act provides: It is the policy of this State that jurors serving in each county shall be selected at random from a fair cross section of the population of that county and that all qualified persons shall have an opportunity to be considered for jury service and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. 10 Del.C. § 4501 (Supp.1990). [14] To achieve those policy objectives, the Delaware Jury Act, like its federal counterpart, embodies two important general principles: (1) random selection of juror names from the county in which court is held; and (2) determination of juror disqualifications, excuses, exemptions and exclusions on the basis of objective criteria only. See United States v. Butts, 514 F.Supp. 1225 (M.D.Fla.1981) (quoting 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1792). Thus, consistent with the analytical framework set forth in the precedents construing the federal Jury Act, we conclude that a substantial failure to comply with the Delaware Jury Act will be found only if the noncompliance contravenes either of the foregoing two basic principles. Accord United States v. Savides, 787 F.2d 751, 754 (1st Cir.1986). Jury service is a duty as well as a privilege of citizenship. Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 224, 66 S.Ct. 984, 987, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946). The obligation to serve, pursuant to the declaration of policy in the Delaware Jury Act, is implemented by Section 4511(b). That Section provides that any prospective juror, who is not disqualified [15] , may be excused from jury service by the Superior Court  only upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience or public necessity. 10 Del.C. § 4511(b) (Supp.1990) (emphasis added). Thus, the provisions of 10 Del.C. § 4511(b) require the court to inquire into the specific reason given by a prospective juror who desires to be excused from service and for the court to determine whether the substantial statutory prerequisites to granting a personal request for excusal have been satisfied. See Riley v. State, Del.Supr., 496 A.2d 997, 1009 (1985). See also City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 538 F.Supp. 1240, 1256-57 (N.D.Ohio 1980). Accordingly, the selection procedure used by the Superior Court in this case, automatically excusing prospective jurors based on an ex parte response to a single question in the special questionnaire, without a specific showing and a judicial finding of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience or public necessity, was contrary to the express terms of the Delaware Jury Act. 10 Del.C. § 4511(b) (Supp.1990). See also Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. at 224, 66 S.Ct. at 987. [16] However, the sine qua non under the Delaware Jury Act is substantial noncompliance. 10 Del.C. § 4512(b). Therefore, technical deviations, or even a number of them, that do not frustrate the random selection and fair cross section requirements, and do not result in impermissible discrimination and arbitrariness, will not constitute a substantial failure to comply with the Delaware Jury Act. See United States v. Savides, 787 F.2d at 754; United States v. Gregory, 730 F.2d 692, 699 (11th Cir.1984). The burden was on Celotex to establish a denial of the statutory rights afforded to it. To satisfy that burden, Celotex was required to demonstrate that the jury selection procedure utilized by the Superior Court failed to substantially comply with the provisions of the Delaware Jury Act. Before Celotex presented its objections to the Superior Court, Celotex had the opportunity to review all of the standard and the special juror qualification questionnaires which were returned, and thereby to investigate the composition of the pool from which the jury in this case was drawn. Cf. United States v. Savides, 787 F.2d at 754. The record reflects that Celotex has not sustained its burden of presenting evidence that there was a substantial failure by the Superior Court to comply with the random selection and the cross-section requirements of the Delaware Jury Act. Celotex has made no showing on the record in the Superior Court that prospective jurors were selected in a non-random manner. [17] Similarly, Celotex has failed to demonstrate, on the record, that the jury selection process was not objective. Celotex, as the appellant, was obligated to establish a sufficient record to enable this Court to render a fair and accurate decision, with respect to any action by the trial court which it challenges on appeal. Tricoche v. State, Del.Supr., 525 A.2d 151, 154 (1987). Celotex has not provided this Court with a sufficient record to determine whether the jury selection procedures utilized by the Superior Court in the case sub judice failed to substantially comply with the Delaware Jury Act. [18] Consequently, Celotex's challenges to the jury selection procedures utilized by the Superior Court cannot prevail in this appeal.