Court Opinion

ID: 9795866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:40:52.215789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:48.169770
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 24] I join Chief Justice Voigt's dissent, but write separately because I disagree with the majority's resolution of the jury panel issue. The question presented is simple: Did the jury selection process comply with the Wyoming statutory requirements? To answer that question, I would interpret and apply the applicable Wyoming statutes. See State v. Curtis, 2002 WY 120, ¶¶ 23-26, 51 P.3d 867, 872 (Wyo.2002) (Golden, J., dissent*594ing). Because these statutes are clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to rely on constitutional principles or decisions from other jurisdictions with different jury selection statutes.
[¶ 25] Under Wyoming's statutory process, a list of persons qualified to serve as jurors is certified to the clerk of court as "the base jury list for the district court ... from April 1 of the year in which the list is certified and delivered through March 31 of the following year." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-106(a) (LexisNexis 2007). The clerk of court prepares ballots using all of the names on the base jury list, and places the ballots "in a box known as and plainly marked "jury box number one'" Id. When a jury trial approaches on the docket, the district court directs the clerk to draw a specified number of names from "jury box number one." Id. Before drawing those names:
The clerk shall shake the box containing the names of the regular jurors so as to mix the ballots therein as well as possible. He shall then draw from the box as many ballots as are ordered by the court.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-109(a). Persons whose names are drawn from "jury box number one" become members of the jury panel, and they are summoned to appear at the specified time and place for jury selection. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-109(d) and (e).
[126] In Mr. Bloomer's case, the base jury list consisted of 850 persons, listed in alphabetical order. The clerk of court did not put all 350 names in a box, shake them, and draw names for the jury panel. Instead, she limited the potential jurors to those on the base jury list whose last names began with the letters "H" through "P."
[¶ 27] The clerk's failure to draw the. names from "jury box number one" is not, by itself, fatally defective. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-11-129 expressly allows alternative methods for the drawing of jurors, but it explicitly specifies that the alternative methods must be "calculated to insure the integrity of the system and a random selection process." Id. (Emphasis added.) The word random is defined as "having the same probability of occurring as every other member of a set." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1880 (2002).
[¶ 28] The procedures specified by statute insure a random selection process. The set of 350 names on the base jury list is placed into "jury box number one." When the clerk draws names, every person in the set has an equal probability of being selected for the jury panel.
[¶ 29] The procedures used to select the jury panel in Mr. Bloomer's case did not result in a random selection from the set of 850 jurors on the base jury list. Only those whose last names began with letters "H" through "P" had the potential to be selected as jurors. Those whose last names began with the letters "A" through "G" and "Q" through "Z" had no probability of being selected. Because every person on the base jury list did not have an equal probability of being selected, the selection process was not random, and did not comply with the statutory requirements.
[¶ 30] I am perplexed by the majority's failure to grant relief to Mr. Bloomer in light of its determination that this method "may not be used in any future cases." Such determination prompts the question, "Why not?" Is the majority finding that the procedure failed to comply with the statute? The opinion does not specifically make that finding. Will this Court apply a harmless error analysis to future violations? If so, as Mr. Bloomer has discovered, the Court's mandate is essentially meaningless. Future litigants will find themselves in the same position as Mr. Bloomer. A trial court's failure to satisfy jury selection requirements will remain a wrong without a remedy.
[¶ 31] If the Court is not going to apply a harmless error analysis in future cases, it should not apply that analysis here. Mr. Bloomer raised this issue prior to trial. He established that the procedure did not comply with the statutorily mandated random jury selection process. If any litigant is enti*595tled to relief, it is Mr. Bloomer.2 I would reverse.

. See, eg., Oroz v. Board of County Com'rs of Carbon County, 575 P.2d 1155, 1159 (Wyo.1978):
The final question herein is the application of this decision. The court is fully cognizant that a long reliance has been placed upon the rule of immunity and that it will raise certain problems which must be considered and proper arrangements made.... However, this appellant should not be the recipient of a pyrrhic victory but should be allowed to proceed. There is abundant authority as to the propriety of this approach. There are at least three reasons given for this result: Unless it is applied to the appealing party the decision is mere dicta; refusal would deprive the successful appellant of the fruits of his time, effort and expense; and further that the plaintiff should have recovery for the reason that case law is not likely to keep up with the needs of society if the litigant who successfully champions a cause is left with only that distinction.
(Internal citations and punctuation omitted.)