CHAPTER 45
JURIES AND JURORS
Subchapter
A. Qualifications and Exemptions
B. Selection and Custody of Jurors
C. Summoning Jurors
D. Investigating Grand Juries
E. Miscellaneous Provisions
F. Penalties
Enactment. Chapter 45 (Reserved) was added July 9, 1976, P.L.586, No.142, effective 60 days from
the date of final enactment of the act of April 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, and the
remaining provisions of Chapter 45 were added June 26, 1980, P.L.266, No.78, effective
immediately.
Special Provisions in Appendix. See sections 5 and 6 of Act 78 of 1980 in the appendix to this title for special provisions
relating to applicability and implementation of Chapter 45 and validity of interim
proceedings.
SUBCHAPTER A
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS
Sec.
4501. Declaration of policy.
4502. Qualifications of jurors.
4503. Exemptions from jury duty.
§ 4501. Declaration of policy.
It is the policy of this Commonwealth that:
(1) All persons entitled to a jury trial in a civil action or criminal proceeding shall
have the right to jurors selected at random from a representative cross section of
the eligible population of the county.
(2) All qualified citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service as
jurors in the courts of this Commonwealth and shall have an obligation to serve as
jurors when summoned for that purpose.
(3) A citizen shall not be excluded from service as a juror on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin or economic status.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Spence, 627 A.2d 1176 (Pa. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4501. In Batson , the Supreme Court held that a defendant is required to demonstrate a prima facie case that the prosecutor improperly used peremptory challenges.”
Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607 (Pa. 2012).
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 4501(3). A majority of this Court recently rejected a virtually identical claim raised by Appellant’s codefendant Martin in his appeal from the denial of guilt-phase relief on collateral review.”
Commonwealth v. Craver, 688 A.2d 691 (Pa. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The failure to update the lists resulted in the exclusion of all residents who reached the age of eighteen and those who changed addresses after the list was prepared in 1989, in direct violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501 and 4502. 3 *24 The jury commission failed to maintain…”
Commonwealth v. Harris, 424 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Jury selection procedure is now codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 4501 et seq. (Act No. 1980-78, Purdon’s Pa.”
Shick v. Shirey, 691 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 2× “2d 119 (1978) (employee discharged for performing statutorily obligated jury duty violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 4501); Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co.”
Dietz v. Round Hill Foods Inc., 49 Pa. D. & C.3d 222 (1987).
“See 42 Pa. C.S. §4501 (Declaration of Policy) stating the policy of this commonwealth regarding the right to a jury trial, and 42 Pa.”
Nazar v. Clark Distrib. Sys. Inc., 46 Pa. D. & C.4th 28 (2000).
“2d 1170, 1180 (1989), or serving on a jury pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §4501. Reuther v. Fowler & Williams Inc.”
Shick v. Shirey, 25 Pa. D. & C.4th 481 (1995).
“See 42 Pa.C.S. §4501 (Declaration of Policy) stating the policy of the Commonwealth regarding the right to a jury trial, and that all qualified citizens shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose, as well as 42 Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4501(1) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Craver, 688 A.2d 691 (Pa. 1997).
“The failure to update the lists resulted in the exclusion of all residents who reached the age of eighteen and those who changed addresses after the list was prepared in 1989, in direct violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501 and 4502. 3 *24 The jury commission failed to maintain…”
Commonwealth v. Harris, 424 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1981).
“Jury selection procedure is now codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 4501 et seq. (Act No. 1980-78, Purdon’s Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4501(2) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4501(3) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607 (Pa. 2012).
“” 42 Pa.C.S. § 4501(3). A majority of this Court recently rejected a virtually identical claim raised by Appellant’s codefendant Martin in his appeal from the denial of guilt-phase relief on collateral review.”
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.