28 U.S.C. § 1878

Optional use of a one-step summoning and qualification procedure

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) At the option of each district court, jurors may be summoned and qualified in a single procedure, if the court’s jury selection plan so authorizes, in lieu of the two separate procedures otherwise provided for by this chapter. Courts shall ensure that a one-step summoning and qualification procedure conducted under this section does not violate the policies and objectives set forth in sections 1861 and 1862 of this title.(b) Jury selection conducted under this section shall be subject to challenge under section 1867 of this title for substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the jury. However, no challenge under section 1867 of this title shall lie solely on the basis that a jury was selected in accordance with a one-step summoning and qualification procedure authorized by this section.(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title VIII, § 805(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4658; amended Pub. L. 102–572, title IV, § 403(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4512.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “Optional” for “Experimental” in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

“(a) The Judicial Conference of the United States is hereby authorized to develop and conduct an experiment in which jurors serving in a limited number of United States district courts shall be qualified and summoned in a single procedure, in lieu of the two separate procedures otherwise provided for by this chapter. The Judicial Conference shall designate the district courts to participate in this experiment, but in no event shall the number of courts participating exceed ten. An experiment may be conducted pursuant to this section for a period not to exceed 2 years. The Judicial Conference shall ensure that an experiment conducted pursuant to this section does not violate the policies and objectives set forth in sections 1861 and 1862 of this title, and shall terminate the experiment immediately if it determines that these policies and objectives are being violated or whenever in its judgment good cause for such termination exists.

“(b) Jury selection conducted pursuant to this section shall be subject to challenge under section 1867 of this title for substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the jury. However, no challenge under section 1867 of this title shall lie solely on the basis that a jury was selected in accordance with an experiment conducted pursuant to this section.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Jan. 1, 1993, see section 1101(a) of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 905 of Title 2, The Congress.

Savings Provision

Pub. L. 102–572, title IV, § 403(c), Oct. 29, 1972, 106 Stat. 4512, provided that: “For courts participating in the experiment authorized under section 1878 of title 28, United States Code (as in effect before the effective date of this section [Jan. 1, 1993]), the amendment made by subsection (a) of this section [amending this section] shall be effective on and after January 1, 1992.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1993–2009 · leading case: United States v. Royal

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Royal (1999) ca1 “At this stage, the Plan provides for a one-step summoning and qualification process, as authorized by the Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1878 , and specifies various categories of potential jurors who are unqualified, exempt, and eligible for excuse, in accordance with 28 U.”

United States v. Royal (1998) mad “28 U.S.C. § 1878 (b). The defense team correctly notes that a'challenge resting solely on the one-step characteristic- cannot succeed.”

United States v. Hsia (2000) dcd · cites it 3× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1878 (a) (“At the option of each district court, jurors may be summoned and qualified in a single procedure .”

United States v. Stanko (2009) ned “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1878 , the court ... shall publicly draw at random from the master jury wheels the names of as many persons as may be required for jury service.”

Hardin v. City of Gadsden (1993) alnd “From October 1989 through the end of 1990, the district utilized the "one-step" procedure authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1878 (Supp.1993). Under this procedure, the questionnaire and the summons are sent simultaneously to prospective jurors.”

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.