(A) At least six days before the drawing of jurors under section 2313.09 of the Revised Code, the commissioners of jurors shall publish notice of the drawing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the county. They shall also serve written notice upon the clerk of the court of common pleas and at least one judge of the court of common pleas of the county.
(B) All drawings of jurors shall be public on a day designated by the commissioners of jurors. A commissioner or a designated deputy commissioner, a judge of the court of common pleas or the judge's designated representative, and the clerk of the court of common pleas or the clerk's deputy or other designated representative shall attend at the office of the commissioners to supervise the jury list selection process.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1961–2012 · leading case: State v. Williams, 679 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio 1997).
State v. Williams, 679 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 3ד08 requires the jury commissioners in each county to make up an annual jury list, certify it, file it in their office before the beginning of each jury year, and certify and file a duplicate list in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas.”
State v. Yarbrough, 767 N.E.2d 216 (Ohio 2002). “Venire Drawn from Electors List {¶ 103} Finally, appellant complains that the venire was drawn exclusively from registered voters rather than from licensed drivers.”
State v. Yarbrough, 2002-Ohio-2126, 767 N.E.2d 216. “Venire Drawn from Electors List {¶103} Finally, appellant complains that the venire was drawn exclusively from registered voters rather than from licensed drivers.”
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St. 3d 1 (1997). · cites it 3ד08 requires the jury commissioners in each county to make up an annual jury list, certify it, file it in their office before the beginning of each jury year, and certify and file a duplicate list in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas.”
State v. Durr, 2012-Ohio-4691. · cites it 2דR.C. 2313.08(A); R.C. 2313.09. Yet supplementation of the annual jury list is discretionary, not mandatory.”
State, Ex Rel. Krupa v. Green, 177 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1961). · cites it 2דA similar provision (Section 2313.08, Eevised Code) defines the qualifications of jurors, that is that the persons selected as jurors shall be taken from the list of electors within the jurisdiction of the court.”
State v. Howard, 2012-Ohio-4690. · cites it 2דR.C. 2313.08(A); R.C. 2313.09. Yet supplementation of the annual jury list is discretionary, not mandatory.”
State v. Gunther, 708 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1998). “2313.01. This being so, the judges should give their employees guidance and direction to insure that the laws relating to the selection of jurors are scrupulously followed.”
State v. Lewis, 600 N.E.2d 764 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1991). “For this and additional reasons that follow, the assignment of error is overruled.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2313.08(A): 2 cases
State v. Durr, 2012-Ohio-4691. “R.C. 2313.08(A); R.C. 2313.09. Yet supplementation of the annual jury list is discretionary, not mandatory.”
State v. Howard, 2012-Ohio-4690. “R.C. 2313.08(A); R.C. 2313.09. Yet supplementation of the annual jury list is discretionary, not mandatory.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2313.08(B): 4 cases
State v. Yarbrough, 767 N.E.2d 216 (Ohio 2002). “Venire Drawn from Electors List {¶ 103} Finally, appellant complains that the venire was drawn exclusively from registered voters rather than from licensed drivers.”
State v. Yarbrough, 2002-Ohio-2126, 767 N.E.2d 216. “Venire Drawn from Electors List {¶103} Finally, appellant complains that the venire was drawn exclusively from registered voters rather than from licensed drivers.”
State v. Durr, 2012-Ohio-4691. “R.C. 2313.08(A); R.C. 2313.09. Yet supplementation of the annual jury list is discretionary, not mandatory.”
State v. Howard, 2012-Ohio-4690. “R.C. 2313.08(A); R.C. 2313.09. Yet supplementation of the annual jury list is discretionary, not mandatory.”
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.