K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3408 (2026)

Trial jurors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

22-3408. Trial jurors. (1) When drawn, a list of prospective jurors shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court and shall be a public record.

(2) (a) The qualifications of jurors and grounds for exemption from jury service in civil cases shall be applicable in criminal trials, except as otherwise provided by law.

(b) An exemption from service on a jury is not a basis for challenge, but is the privilege of the person exempted.

(3) The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or the defendant's attorney shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors. The court may conduct an additional examination. The court may limit the examination by the defendant, the defendant's attorney or the prosecuting attorney if the court believes such examination to be harassment, is causing unnecessary delay or serves no useful purpose.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3408; L. 2017, ch. 73, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 6× “Did scope of voir dire rulings violate Kansas law? Robinson argues the trial court consistently denied counsel's efforts to utilize case- specific questioning to detect and disqualify panelists who would not realistically consider a life sentence in violation of K.”
State v. Reyna, 234 P.3d 761 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) governs the conduct of voir dire and provides: "The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his attorney shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors.”
State v. Hudgins, 346 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 3× “Standard of Review A district court “may limit [voir dire] examination by the defendant, his attorney, or the prosecuting attorney if the court believes such examination to be harassment, is causing unnecessaiy delay or serves no useful purpose.”
State v. Johnson – Hill, 391 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “During the afternoon session, the trial judge supervised the voir dire (K.S.A. 22-3408[3]); was present to rule on any challenges for cause (K.”
State v. Woods, 348 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2015). “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) governs voir dire, stating: “The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his attorney shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors.”
In Re Jones, 612 P.2d 1211 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “"WHEREUPON, the defendant moves for an order pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3408 [ sic ] setting reasonable bond during the pendency of an appeal from the denial of defendant's motion to determine the applicability of K.”
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). “The first incident of defendant’s absence occurred when the court and counsel discussed some prospective jurors’ answers to a questionnaire requested by defendant for the purpose of flushing out potential jurors with significant familiarity with pretrial publicity about the case.”
State v. Hayes, 908 P.2d 597 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) describes the procedure for examining prospective jurors in a criminal trial.”
State v. Pioletti, 785 P.2d 963 (Kan. 1990). “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) provides: “The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his attorney shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors.”
State v. Perry, 968 P.2d 674 (Kan. 1998). “22-2616(1); K.S.A. 22-3408; K.S.A. 22-3410; K.S.A. 22-3411a; K.”
State v. Snodgrass, 979 P.2d 664 (Kan. 1999). “The simple response to the defendants’ complaint is that there is no statutory requirement to conduct a traditional voir dire of the grand jurors.”
State v. Madkins, 219 P.3d 831 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “The court may limit (he examination by the defendant, his [or her] attorney or the prosecuting attorney if the court believes such examination to be harassment, is causing unnecessary delay or serves no useful purpose.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3408(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). “The first incident of defendant’s absence occurred when the court and counsel discussed some prospective jurors’ answers to a questionnaire requested by defendant for the purpose of flushing out potential jurors with significant familiarity with pretrial publicity about the case.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3408(3) — 15 cases
State v. Reyna, 234 P.3d 761 (Kan. 2010). “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) governs the conduct of voir dire and provides: "The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his attorney shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors.”
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). “Did scope of voir dire rulings violate Kansas law? Robinson argues the trial court consistently denied counsel's efforts to utilize case- specific questioning to detect and disqualify panelists who would not realistically consider a life sentence in violation of K.”
State v. Hudgins, 346 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2015). “Standard of Review A district court “may limit [voir dire] examination by the defendant, his attorney, or the prosecuting attorney if the court believes such examination to be harassment, is causing unnecessaiy delay or serves no useful purpose.”
State v. Woods, 348 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2015). “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) governs voir dire, stating: “The prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his attorney shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors.”
State v. Hayes, 908 P.2d 597 (Kan. 1995). “K.S.A. 22-3408(3) describes the procedure for examining prospective jurors in a criminal trial.”
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.