Challenge to the Array (Jury Shuffle) in Texas

What Is a Challenge to the Array (Jury Shuffle)?

Background

“When the jurors summoned have not been selected by jury commissioners or by drawing the names from a jury wheel, any party to a suit which is to be tried by a jury may, before the jury is drawn challenge the array upon the ground that the officer summoning the jury has acted corruptly, and has wilfully summoned jurors known to be prejudiced against the party challenging or biased in favor of the adverse party.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 221.)

How to Structure the Motion

“All such challenges must be in writing setting forth distinctly the grounds of such challenge and supported by the affidavit of the party or some other credible person.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 221.) The motion challenging the array must be filed with the judge presiding over the charge of the selection of the array. (State v. Smith, 671 S.W.2d 32, 36 [1984].)

Some Texas appellate courts have recognized that civil litigants who are entitled to a jury trial also enjoy the right to a jury selected from a panel that is fairly representative of the community. (Mendoza v. Ranger Ins. Co., 753 S.W.2d 779, 780; Garcia v. Spohn Health System Corp., 19 S.W.3d 507, 512.)

The respondent must show, at a minimum, that the method utilized to assemble the jury array systematically excludes minorities. (May v. State, 738 S.W.2d 261, 269 [1987].) To establish a prima facie constitutional violation of the “fair cross section of the community represented” requirement, a party must show:

that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community;
that the representation of this group in veneers from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and,
that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.

(Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 580 [1996]; Lacy v. State, 899 S.W.2d 284, 287 [1995].)

The policy of allowing jurors to respond electronically to the jury summons and allowing the ‘e-jury’ to compromise the entire venire panel systematically creates an unconstitutional under-representation of the poor, elderly, African-Americans and Hispanics. (Feagins v. State, 142 S.W.3d 532 [2004].)

Response

Arguments rooted in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury that is selected from a fair cross section of the community, do not always apply to civil cases. (In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637, 645-56 [2005].)

The Court’s Decision

“When such a challenge is made, the court shall hear evidence and decide without delay whether or not the challenge shall be sustained.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 221.)

Noncompliance with the mode and manner of summoning venire members set out in Texas Government Code is error whenever a defendant establishes harm. (Lewis v. State, 815 S.W.2d 560 [1991].)

Documents for Challenge to the Array (Jury Shuffle) in Texas

Sort By

QJ TEAM, LLC vs. HEB HOMES, LLC document preview

OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITIO…

612 pages

FILED 12/28/2023 3:44 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK …