If a grand jury is ordered, the number stated in the judge's order, not to exceed one hundred, shall be summoned as grand jurors, and the grand jury shall be impaneled from said persons. The judge of the district court shall order the court clerk, one of his or her deputies or the court administrator to order the stated number of jurors from the Administrative Director of the Courts. In any district court where an electronic jury management system is implemented pursuant to Section 13 of this act, the judge may order the stated number of jurors to be randomly selected and summoned by the court clerk or trial court administrator utilizing the jury management system, and the district court may use the jury management system to randomly select the names of the grand or petit jurors and alternate jurors from the panels so drawn. In addition to the twelve (12) grand jurors to be impaneled, three additional persons shall be selected as alternate grand jurors. The alternate grand jurors shall attend all functions of the grand jury during its term and shall be subject to all laws governing grand jurors. Provided that, no alternate juror shall participate in any deliberations of the grand jury until appointed to fill a vacancy. If the judge so directs, the persons summoned for the grand jury panel who are not used thereon may be transferred to the petit jury panel. Additional and other drawing of as many names as the court may order may be had at any such time as the court or judge may order for the completion of a grand or petit jury panel, or for the impaneling of a new grand or petit jury if, in the judgment of the court, the same shall be necessary, or if, for any cause, the court, in its discretion, shall deem other jurors necessary. The court may excuse or discharge any person drawn and summoned as a grand or petit juror whenever, in its discretion, such action shall be deemed expedient. No person may be required to render service as a petit
juror for more than one (1) day in any one calendar year unless he or she is selected to serve in a trial or is under consideration to serve in a trial and such consideration covers a period of two (2) or more days. Once selected, a juror shall serve on the jury for the duration of the trial unless excused by the presiding judge. Added by Laws 1949, p. 280, § 4, emerg. eff. June 2, 1949. Amended by Laws 1961, p. 281, § 1; Laws 1963, c. 268, § 1; Laws 1969, c. 134, § 1, emerg. eff. April 9, 1969; Laws 1975, c. 310, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1975; Laws 1977, c. 213, § 2, emerg. eff. June 14, 1977; Laws 1982, c. 3, § 1; Laws 2002, c. 390, § 17, emerg. eff. June 4, 2002; Laws 2004, c. 525, § 5, eff. July 1, 2004; Laws 2015, c. 242, § 8, emerg. eff. May 4, 2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1959–2008 · leading case:
State v. Hall, 2008 OK CR 15, 185 P.3d 397.
State v. Hall, 2008 OK CR 15, 185 P.3d 397.
· cites it 16× “Although Judge McElwee specifically did not find 38 O.S.2001, § 21 unconstitutional, she was unable to "harmonize" the language of § 21, which expressly authorizes the selection and attendance by alternates at all functions of the grand jury, except for the deliberations of the…”
Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “” Title 38 O.S.1971, § 21, clearly gives the trial court authority to draw additional veniremen, and to deny that same authority to an assigned judge is patently frivolous.”
Hammers v. State, 337 P.2d 1097 (Okla. Crim. App. 1959).
· cites it 4× “This was done according to the provisions of 38 O.S.1951 § 21, reading, in part, as follows: “ * * * If a grand jury is ordered, the first names drawn to the number stated in the judge’s order, not to exceed twenty-four * * * shall be empaneled from said persons.”
Stuart v. State, 522 P.2d 288 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “While the method of selection employed in the instant case has, in our view, achieved substantial compliance with the statutory requirements, we strongly suggest that a somewhat different procedure be followed in future cases.”
Grand Jury of Seminole Cnty. v. Dye, 571 P.2d 1200 (Okla. 1977).
· cites it 4× “1971, § 329; (4) the drawing of the grand jury panel was not held in open court as required by 38 O.S.1971, § 21; (5) all proceedings of the Grand Jury were vitiated by the presence of an unauthorized person (Assistant Attorney General) in the grand jury room during its…”
Escobedo v. State, 545 P.2d 210 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The defendant urges that such facts illustrate the improper manner in which the jury panel was selected and that such irregularities prejudiced the defendant. The procedure by which a jury is selected must be in conformity with statutory provisions in 38 O.”
Bryant v. State, 478 P.2d 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970).
“It is next contended under defendant’s second assignment of error, that the trial court’s order holding the jury over for an additional six days was not in compliance with 38 O.S. § 21, the pertinent part of which is as follows: “ * * * No petit jurors shall be allowed to serve…”
Clem v. State, 701 P.2d 770 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“Our conclusion is strengthened by language in 38 O.S.1981, § 21, which does limit service of petit jurors, but is silent regarding grand jurors.”
Bickerstaff v. State, 446 P.2d 73 (Okla. Crim. App. 1968).
“It is next contended under defendant’s first assignment of error that the trial court’s order holding the jury over for an additional six days was not in compliance with 38 O.S. § 21, the pertinent part of which is as follows: “ * * * No petit jurors shall be allowed to serve…”
Selfridge v. State, 617 P.2d 237 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980).
“While excusing panelists may fall within the judge’s discretion for purposes of expediency, 38 O.S.Supp.1979, § 21, the appellant’s argument also has a basis in 22 O.”
Bloxham v. State, 600 P.2d 341 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979).
“' The defendants first assign as error that the calling of the jury panel was not in substantial compliance with 38 O.S.1971, § 21. The defendants did not move to quash the jury until three days into the trial, one and a half days after the jury was impanelled and the hearing of…”
Noland v. State, 550 P.2d 958 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
“” The defendant argues that 38 O.S.Supp.1975 § 21 provides that only the court may excuse or discharge any person drawn and summoned as a juror.”
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.