Nebraska Revised Statute 25-1649

Print Friendly
Chapter 25

25-1649.

Jurors; selection.

In each of the county and district courts of this state, the lists of grand and petit jurors shall be made up and jurors selected for jury duty in the manner prescribed in the Jury Selection Act.

Source

  • R.S.1867, Code § 658, p. 510;
  • R.S.1913, § 8137;
  • C.S.1922, § 9073;
  • C.S.1929, § 20-1603;
  • Laws 1931, c. 36, § 1, p. 129;
  • Laws 1939, c. 18, § 23, p. 113;
  • C.S.Supp.,1941, § 20-1603;
  • R.S.1943, § 25-1603;
  • Laws 1953, c. 72, § 2, p. 225;
  • Laws 1979, LB 234, § 3;
  • Laws 1980, LB 733, § 2;
  • R.S.1943, (2016), § 25-1603;
  • Laws 2020, LB387, § 6.

Annotations

  • 1. Scope

  • 2. Challenge

  • 1. Scope

  • Number of votes cast at election does not furnish basis for definite inference as to number of persons possessing qualifications of jurors. Nelson v. State, 118 Neb. 812, 226 N.W. 438 (1929).

  • Failure of county board to select jurors fifteen days before opening of term did not require quashing of panel without resulting prejudice. Fetty v. State, 118 Neb. 169, 223 N.W. 955 (1929).

  • Section is not applicable to calling of juries after commencement of term. Pinn v. State, 107 Neb. 417, 186 N.W. 544 (1922).

  • One who has served within two years should not be selected, but it is not sufficient to quash panel. Kerr v. State, 63 Neb. 115, 88 N.W. 240 (1901).

  • In calling special term, failure of judge to direct summons of jurors under this section does not invalidate. Welsh v. State, 60 Neb. 101, 82 N.W. 368 (1900).

  • Section is mandatory, and must be strictly followed. Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 247, 47 N.W. 854 (1891).

  • When right of suffrage was restricted to male voters, apportionment might be based on vote at last general election. Bohanan v. State, 15 Neb. 209, 18 N.W. 129 (1883).

  • Jury for called term must be selected in this manner. Brown alias McElvoy v. State, 9 Neb. 157, 2 N.W. 378 (1879).

  • 2. Challenge

  • Failure to challenge a juror for cause and to examine him or other witnesses as to his competency is a waiver, even though fact of incompetency is not known until after verdict. Young v. State, 133 Neb. 644, 276 N.W. 387 (1937).

  • It was error to refuse to quash panel where officers who selected jurors are members of secret society seeking to convict defendant. Nelson v. State, 115 Neb. 26, 211 N.W. 175 (1926).

  • It was error to overrule challenge to the array in criminal case, where jurors were drawn by precinct, separately, instead of by lot from sixty names from county at large. Kronberg v. State, 114 Neb. 393, 207 N.W. 668 (1926).

  • Commissioner having case pending should not assist in selection of list, but panel will not be quashed. Northeastern Neb. R. R. Co. v. Frazier, 25 Neb. 42, 40 N.W. 604 (1888).

  • It is ground for plea in abatement, where grand jury is not proportionately selected. Barton v. State, 12 Neb. 260, 11 N.W. 323 (1882).

  • Plea in abatement that jurors were not properly selected must specifically point out objections. Baldwin v. State, 12 Neb. 61, 10 N.W. 463 (1881).

  • If not selected proportionately, it is ground for challenge to array. Clark v. Saline County, 9 Neb. 516, 4 N.W. 246 (1880).