Opinion ID: 2039996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury of the Vicinage

Text: The defendant asserts that his right under the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Wisconsin Constitution, art. I, sec. 7, to be tried entirely by residents of the county in which the crime occurred was violated because juror Brayshaw did not reside in Dane county when the case was tried. The trial court, as stated above, rejected this argument and concluded that no constitutional deprivation occurred. The court of appeals declined to reach the issue of whether the sixth amendment's vicinage provision applies to the states. The court found, however, that Wisconsin Constitution art. I, sec. 7, does guarantee a defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law. [1] Despite the court of appeals' recognition of this constitutional right, it held, and we agree, that the case law is firm: objections to the residency of a juror, even if based on constitutional grounds, are not grounds for a new trial or reversal if made for the first time after the trial. We conclude that Wyss waived his right to a jury of the vicinage by failing to question Brayshaw during voir dire about his residency and then by failing to object to his serving on the jury on the ground that he was no longer a resident of Dane county. In Rockwell v. Elderkin, 19 Wis. 388 ( 367) (1865), a civil case, the trial court granted a new trial based on affidavits showing that one of the jurors had removed from said county [the county of the trial] to Dane County, and that this fact was not known to the defendant or his attorney, before the trial. Id. at 389 ( 367). This court reversed stating: The circumstance of Elderkin having discovered, after the trial, that one of the jurors had removed from the county, is not in our opinion sufficient cause for granting a new trial. If the objection had been taken before trial, by way of challenge, it might have prevailed on strictly technical grounds; but after trial we think is is too late. It is an objection which does not affect the impartiality or intelligence of the juror, and furnishes no presumption against the justice of the verdict. We think it should be disregarded after verdict. Id. at 390 ( 368). The defendant contends that the court of appeals' reliance on Rockwell in finding waiver was both an error of law and an error of fact. First, the defendant contends that Rockwell is not applicable here because, as a civil case, Rockwell was not subject to the heightened requirements of juror fairness and impartiality imposed upon criminal proceedings by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and by article I, sec. 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution. This argument was explicitly rejected in Hickey v. State, 12 Neb. 490, 11 N.W. 744, 745 (1882). In Hickey, a criminal case, the Nebraska Supreme Court invoking an earlier decision, Wilcox v. Saunders, 4 Neb. 581 (1876), which relied on Rockwell, held that the failure to challenge the juror before he was sworn, when his nonresidency could have been ascertained upon proper inquiry on voir dire, constituted a waiver of the objection. The overwhelming weight of authority sustains this position even when a constitutional provision, such as the one the defendant relies upon, provides the defendant the right to a jury of the vicinage, Accord State v. Powers, 613 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981); United States v. Haywood, 452 F.2d 1330, 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1971); United States v. Rosenstein, 34 F.2d 630, 634 (2d Cir. 1929); Herndon v. State, 56 So. 85, 86 (Ala. App. 1911); State v. `Wainwright, 376 P.2d 829, 831 (Kan. 1962); State v. McCombs, 181 P.2d 473, 474-76 (Kan. 1947); State v. Olson, 263 N.W. 437, 439 (Minn. 1935); State v. Danner, 226 P. 475, 476 (Mont. 1924); Marino v. State, 197 N.W. 396, 397-98 (Neb. 1924); State v. Comes, 268 N.W. 724, 726 (S.D. 1936); Vaughn v. State, 113 S.W.2d 895, 896 (Tex. 1938). The defendant also argues that the court of appeals' reliance upon Rockwell was erroneous because the Rockwell court expressly premised its holding upon its finding that the juror's nonresidence furnished no presumption against the justice of the verdict. Rockwell at 390 ( 368). We find the same conclusion to be true in this case and thus disagree with the defendant's assertion that juror Brayshaw consciously misrepresented his county of residence. There is simply no evidence to that effect in the record. We accept the trial court's finding that the juror responded to a summons to appear, under penalty of law, and was never asked on voir dire about his residency. Thus, we too conclude that no presumption against the justice of verdict should be inferred from Brayshaw's nonresidence. Id.