Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under Penal Code 1895, § 852; Penal Code 1910, § 856; Code 1933, § 59-701; and former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-120 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Statutes for selecting, drawing, and summoning jurors form no part of system to procure an impartial jury to parties, but establish a mode of distributing jury duties among persons in the respective counties and of setting apart those of supposed higher qualifications for the most important branch of that service. Hulsey v. State, 172 Ga. 797, 159 S.E. 270 (1931) (decided under former Penal Code 1910, § 856).

Statutes for selecting, drawing, and summoning jurors are merely directory. Hulsey v. State, 172 Ga. 797, 159 S.E. 270 (1931) (decided under former Penal Code 1910, § 856).

Requirement that juries must be drawn in open court is safeguard against secret proceedings; it is a procedure which enables the public to observe the conduct of the judge in drawing juries and thus prevent any possible corruption or suspicion of corruption in this vital part of the jury system. Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720, 141 S.E.2d 426 (1965) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-701).

Compliance with open court requirement essential to prosecution's validity.

- Compliance with the requirement that juries must be drawn in open court is essential to the validity of the criminal prosecution. Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720, 141 S.E.2d 426 (1965) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-701).

Constitutionality of open court requirement.

- Petitioner in habeas corpus hearing is not deprived of due process or equal protection because jurors must be drawn in open court. Hill v. Stynchcombe, 225 Ga. 122, 166 S.E.2d 729 (1969) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-701).

Manner of drawing.

- Under former Code 1933, § 59-701 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-12-120.1), judge was required to draw traverse jurors in open court in same way as former Code 1933, § 59-203 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-12-62.1) required grand jurors be drawn. Blevins v. State, 220 Ga. 720, 141 S.E.2d 426 (1965) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-701).

Trial judge is not required physically to pass the judge's own hand into the box in which the name cards are kept to grasp the card in the judge's fingers and the statute was complied with when a small child drew a card under the scrutiny of the trial judge. Sanders v. State, 164 Ga. App. 13, 296 S.E.2d 213 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20).

Jury service by convicted felon.

- There is no statute specifically prohibiting jury service by one who has been convicted of a felony. Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149, 414 S.E.2d 218 (1992), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1225, 113 S. Ct. 416, 121 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20).

Provisions for selection of jurors at close of each term for service at ensuing term is not exclusive as indicated by former Code 1933, § 59-713 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-12-129). Harrison v. State, 120 Ga. App. 812, 172 S.E.2d 328 (1969) (decided under former Code 1933, § 59-701).

Excusing juror not grounds for new trial.

- If juror is excused from service because of private business and the number of jurors present is in excess of the number required by the law, excusal is not ground for new trial. Ellis v. State, 114 Ga. 36, 39 S.E. 881 (1901) (decided under former Penal Code 1895, § 852).

Cited in Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 11 (1882); Lynn v. Flanders, 141 Ga. 500, 81 S.E. 205 (1914); Pollard v. State, 148 Ga. 447, 96 S.E. 997 (1918); Culpepper v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 199 Ga. 56, 33 S.E.2d 168 (1945); Hill v. Dutton, 440 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1971).

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20 are included in this Code section.

One who has been convicted of a felony is not eligible to serve on either a grand or trial jury. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-33 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20).

Conviction for a misdemeanor does not affect one's eligibility to serve on either a grand or trial jury. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-33 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20).

Conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea cannot be used to impose any disability including disqualification from voting, holding public office, and jury service. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-33 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20).

Person who has been placed on probation pursuant to the First Offender Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-8-60 et seq., does not become incompetent to serve on a grand or petit jury under O.C.G.A. § 15-12-60(b)(2) either before or after being discharged without court adjudication of guilt. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U90-6 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-12-20).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 38 Am. Jur. 2d, Grand Jury, §§ 8, 19, 21. 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 101 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 50A C.J.S., Juries, § 311 et seq.

ALR.

- Effect of, and remedies for, exclusion of eligible class or classes of persons from jury list in criminal case, 52 A.L.R. 919.

Membership in secret order or organization for the suppression of crime as proper subject of examination, or ground of challenge, of juror, 158 A.L.R. 1361.

Exclusion of women from grand or trial jury panel in criminal case as violation of constitutional rights of accused or as ground for reversal of conviction, 9 A.L.R.2d 661, 70 A.L.R.5th 587.

Indoctrination by court of persons summoned for jury service, 89 A.L.R.2d 197.

Confusion of names or identities in drawing, summoning, calling, impaneling, or examining jurors in civil case, as affecting verdict, 89 A.L.R.2d 1242.

Prior service on grand jury which considered indictment against accused as disqualification for service on petit jury, 24 A.L.R.3d 1236.

Validity of jury selection as affected by accused's absence from conducting of procedures for selection and impaneling of final jury panel for specific case, 33 A.L.R.4th 429.

Prejudicial effect of jury's procurement or use of book during deliberations in criminal cases, 35 A.L.R.4th 626.

Propriety of substituting juror in bifurcated state trial after end of first phase and before second phase is given to jury, 89 A.L.R.4th 423.

Prejudicial effect of juror's inability to comprehend English, 117 A.L.R.5th 1.