28 U.S.C. § 1867
Challenging compliance with selection procedures
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 416 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 279, 36 Stat. 1165; Jan. 31, 1929, ch. 126, 45 Stat. 1145).
Provisions for service by a disinterested person when marshal or his deputy is disqualified is incorporated in section 1868 of this title.
Provision for payment and reimbursement of postage and registry fee were omitted as covered by section 560 of this title.
Word “summons” was substituted for “writ of venire facias” in harmony with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which abolished unnecessary forms. See Rule 81(b) thereof, and Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Provision of section 416 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that the receipt of the person so addressed by registered mail should be regarded as personal service, was omitted. Such omission is consistent with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure providing that service by mail is complete upon mailing.
Provision for attachment to the return of the addressee’s receipt for the summons, was inserted to cover its disposition.
Provision that no mileage shall be allowed for service by mail was omitted as unnecessary.
Changes were made in phraseology.
1968—Pub. L. 90–274 substituted provisions by which a defendant may assert noncompliance with the selection procedures of the jury for provisions covering the issuance of summonses for jurors and service thereof upon jurors.
1957—Pub. L. 85–259 inserted “or certified” in second and third sentences.
Amendment by Pub. L. 90–274 effective 270 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 527
cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Gause v. United States, 6 A.3d 1247 (D.C. 2010).
Gause v. United States, 6 A.3d 1247 (D.C. 2010). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1867 (a). It further provides that upon the filing of such a motion: the moving party shall be entitled to present in support of such motion the testimony of the jury commission[er] or *1252 clerk, if available, any relevant records and papers not public or…”
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “§1862 (Trial by Jury; Discrimination Prohibited) 28 U. S. C. §1867 (e) (Trial by Jury; Challenging Compliance With Selection Procedures) 29 U.”
United States v. Ward Franklin Dean, 487 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2007). “On the day of trial, December 5, 2005, the appellant filed a motion to stay the proceedings, arguing that the court had failed to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1867 . The court denied that motion on procedural grounds because it was…”
United States v. Jeffrey Williamson, 903 F.3d 124 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “We reject most of his challenges, except that we remand the case to the district court to give Williamson access to jury-commission records as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1867 . I. This case arises out of a 911 phone call Williamson made on June 19, 2014.”
State v. Carlson, 2003 WI 40 (Wis. 2003). “The federal statutory scheme requires the motion alleging statutory noncompliance to be made before voir dire begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered the noncompliance.”
United States v. Alexander Ovalle (94-1566) John Ovalle, Jr. (94-2044) Benito S. Canales (94-2100) Nicholas A. Garcia (94-2263), 136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir. 1998). “9 Section 1867(a) requires a defendant to file a motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Act “within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefor----” 28 U.”
United States v. DeFries, Clayton E., 129 F.3d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1867 (a) (1994). 1 Appellants filed their motion to stay proceedings on Friday morning, February 3, 1995, and promptly brought it to the attention of the district court.”
United States v. Royal, 100 F.3d 1019 (1st Cir. 1996). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1867 (e) (1994). In Test v. United States, 420 U.”
United States v. William M. Percival, Carolyn Allen Percival, Randy L. Middleton, Defendants, 756 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1985). “t a defendant in a criminal case may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of the Act if the motion is made “before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the…”
United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2005). “The district court ruled that Westcott’s motion asserting his fair-cross-section right was time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1867 (a), which provides: In criminal cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have…”
State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987). “[115] Section 78-46-16 appears to have been modeled somewhat after the Federal Jury Selection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1867 (1982). In regard to the exclusivity provision of 28 U.”
United States v. Rene M. Pion, 25 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1994). “We do not share the view embraced by our brother, relating to 28 U.S.C. § 1867 . See infra at pp. 25-28.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) — 1 case
United States v. Samuel S. Smith & Grover Lamar Lee, A/K/A Poss, 588 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1979).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1867(d) — 1 case
United States v. Harold Rosbottom, Jr., 763 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2014).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) — 3 cases
United States v. Harold Rosbottom, Jr., 763 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Caballero, 286 F. Supp. 3d 242 (D.D.C. 2017).
United States v. Rodriguez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1867(f) — 1 case
United States v. Grey, 355 F. Supp. 529 (W.D. Okla. 1973).
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.