Notwithstanding other methods authorized by law, the trial judge may direct in his discretion that a jury in a civil case be selected in the following manner: (a) if the case be triable to a twelve-man jury, eighteen prospective jurors shall be called and seated in the box and then examined on voir dire; when eighteen such
prospective jurors have been passed for cause, each side of the lawsuit shall exercise its peremptory challenges out of the hearing of the jury by alternately striking three names from the list of those so passed for cause, and the remaining twelve persons shall be sworn to try the case; (b) if the case be triable to a six-man jury, twelve prospective jurors shall be called and seated in the box and then examined on voir dire; when twelve such prospective jurors have been passed for cause, each side of the lawsuit shall exercise its peremptory challenges out of the hearing of the jury by alternately striking three names from the list of those so passed for cause, and the remaining six persons shall be sworn to try the case. If there be more than one defendant in the case, and the trial judge determines on motion that there is a serious conflict of interest between them, he may, in his discretion, allow each defendant to strike three names from the list of jurors seated and passed for cause. In such case he shall appropriately increase the number of jurors initially called and seated in the box for voir dire examination. Added by Laws 1969, c. 252, § 1, emerg. eff. April 24, 1969.
Notes of Decisions
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5, 995 P.2d 510.
· cites it 2× “[4] This procedure appears to have been taken from the procedure outlined in 12 O.S.1991, § 575.1(b) for civil cases. [5] Tr.”
In re T.R.W., 722 P.2d 1197 (Okla. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The initial argument presented by appellant father concerns the application of 12 O.S.1981 § 575.1, 1 to cases involving the adjudication of a child’s status as neglected or deprived, or in cases involving the termination of parental rights.”
Nelson v. State, 567 P.2d 522 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
“This is analogous to the method outlined in 12 O.S.1971, § 575.1, except that the total number of potential jurors called, differ due to the difference in the number of peremptory challenges allowed in a felony prosecution, as opposed to a civil suit, and 22 O.”
Matter of TRW, 722 P.2d 1197 (Okla. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The initial argument presented by appellant father concerns the application of 12 O.S.1981 § 575.1, [1] to cases involving the adjudication of a child's status as neglected or deprived, or in cases involving the termination of parental rights.”
West v. State, 2000 OK CIV APP 110, 12 P.3d 972.
· cites it 2× “and the trial judge determines on motion that there is a serious conflict of interest between them, he may, in his discretion, allow each defendant to strike three names from the list of jurors seated and passed for cause.”
In re Adw, 2000 OK CIV APP 110, 12 P.3d 972.
· cites it 3× “However, I do not agree that 12 O.S.1991 § 575.1 applies to this case.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 575.1(a): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 575.1(b): 2 cases
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5, 995 P.2d 510.
“[4] This procedure appears to have been taken from the procedure outlined in 12 O.S.1991, § 575.1(b) for civil cases. [5] Tr.”
In re Adw, 2000 OK CIV APP 110, 12 P.3d 972.
“However, I do not agree that 12 O.S.1991 § 575.1 applies to this case.”
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.