Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-71-101 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act".

Source: L. 89: Entire article R&RE, p. 765, § 1, effective January 1, 1990.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-71-101 as it existed prior to 1989.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 6× “Likewise, in Issue 61, Rodriguez has alleged violations of the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, §§ 13-71-101 to -122, 6 C.R.S. (1973 & 1986 Supp.”
People v. Sepeda, 581 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 8× “It was determined by the judicial administrator and the chief judge of the judicial district that the conversion could not be accomplished by reason of a lack of funding.”
v. People, 2019 CO 105 (Colo. 2019). “¶10 Section 105 of the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, §§ 13-71-101 to -145, C.R.S. (2019), initially defines qualification for jury service in terms of citizenship and either residency or habitation in a particular county, but it then provides a number of specific…”
v. Abu-Nantambu-El, 2019 CO 106 (Colo. 2019). “9 Act, §§ 13-71-101 to -145, C.R.S. (2019) (“UJSSA”), jurors must be U.”
People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014). “(2013) (UJSSA), initially defines qualification for jury service in terms of citizenship and either residency or habitation in a particular county, but it then provides a number of specific conditions that will nevertheless disqualify an otherwise qualified prospective juror.…”
Washington v. People, 186 P.3d 594 (Colo. 2008). · cites it 2× “Washington and Sayles also argue that the evidence of statistical significance in this case is sufficient to establish a violation of their statutory rights under the Colorado Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, §§ 13-71-101 to -145, C.R.S. (2007). However, because neither…”
People v. Washington, 179 P.3d 153 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “Drawing the Jury Panel from a Fair cross-section of the Community In the course of jury selection, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the jury pool on the grounds it was constituted in violation of the Colorado Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, § 13-71-101, et seq.,…”
People v. Binkley, 687 P.2d 480 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “23, which it has discharged generally with the enactment of the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, § 13-71-101, et seq., C.R.S. This statute, as supplemented by the Colorado Rules of Jury Selection and Service, contains no provisions for excuse or disqualification of…”
Aurora by & on Behalf of People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 3× “Because we conclude that Aurora's petition for certiorari was timely filed in this court and that its procedure for summoning and selecting jurors was not prohibited by either article II, section 16 of the Colorado Constitution or the provisions of the Uniform Jury Selection and…”
People ex rel. Faulk v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist. of Colorado, 667 P.2d 1384 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 2× “The policy of this state, as expressed in the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, section 13-71-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973 and 1982 Supp.”
City of Aurora ex rel. People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 3× “Because we conclude that Aurora’s petition for cer-tiorari was timely filed in this court and that its procedure for summoning and selecting jurors was not prohibited by either article II, section 16 of the Colorado Constitution or the provisions of the Uniform Jury Selection…”
People v. Green, 759 P.2d 814 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). “6A), the time limitation for challenging a jury panel because of failure to comply with the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, § 13-71-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.