Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.075 (2026)

Repealed, 1978

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Selection of names for jury service -- Number of names -- Filling of drum. History: Repealed 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 491, effective January 2, 1978. -- Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 7, sec. 8, effective March 9, 1954.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1972–1977 · leading case: Patterson v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 607 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patterson v. Commonwealth, 555 S.W.2d 607 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “§ 29.075 [hereinafter cited as KRS]. Discrimination is based upon what goes into the wheel rather than the composition of what comes out of the wheel.”
Lenston v. Commonwealth, 497 S.W.2d 561 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). “The contention of the defendants that the jury selection process in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in accordance with KRS 29.075 resulted in an impermissible systematic exclusion of qualified segments of the community was examined and rejected in Splunge v.”
Splunge v. Commonwealth, 487 S.W.2d 925 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “KRS 29.075(1) provides that, “The jury commissioners shall consult the current voters’ registration records, and/or the last returned tax records for the county, and, from such records, shall select from those qualified citizens and residents of the county * * * ” the jury…”
Blakemore v. Commonwealth, 497 S.W.2d 231 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “He also asserts that KRS 29.075 should be declared unconstitutional.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.075(1): 1 case
Splunge v. Commonwealth, 487 S.W.2d 925 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “KRS 29.075(1) provides that, “The jury commissioners shall consult the current voters’ registration records, and/or the last returned tax records for the county, and, from such records, shall select from those qualified citizens and residents of the county * * * ” the jury…”
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.