RULE 4-312. JURY SELECTION
West's Annotated Code of MarylandMaryland RulesEffective: August 1, 2020
Effective: August 1, 2020
MD Rules, Rule 4-312
RULE 4-312. JURY SELECTION
Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, ยง 8-420(b).
(3) Challenge to the Array. A party may challenge the array on the ground that its members were not selected or summoned according to law, or on any other ground that would disqualify the array as a whole. A challenge to the array shall be made and determined before any individual member of the array is examined, except that the trial judge for good cause may permit the challenge to be made after the jury is sworn but before any evidence is received.
Committee note: The judge should advise prospective jurors and remind impaneled jurors that (1) it is standard procedure for jurors to be referred to in open court only by juror number and not by name, and (2) they may disclose their names to each other if they wish and, when not in open court, refer to each other by name, but they may not specifically disclose the names of other jurors to anyone else unless authorized by the judge.
(1) Contents. Subject to section (d) of this Rule, before the examination of qualified jurors, each party shall be provided with a list that includes each juror's name, city or town of residence, zip code, age, gender, education, occupation, and spouse's occupation. Unless the trial judge orders otherwise, the juror's street address or box number shall not be provided.
Cross reference: See Rule 16-913 (a) concerning disclosure of juror information by a custodian of court records.
(1) Finding by the Court. If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence or information, after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, that disclosure of the names or the city or town of residence of prospective jurors will create a substantial danger that (i) the safety and security of one or more jurors will likely be imperiled, or (ii) one or more jurors will likely be subjected to coercion, inducement, other improper influence, or undue harassment, the court may enter an order as provided in subsection (d)(2) of this Rule. A finding under this section shall be in writing or on the record and shall state the basis for the finding.
Committee note: Nondisclosure of the city or town in which a juror resides is in recognition of the fact that some counties have incorporated cities or towns, the disclosure of which, when coupled with other information on the jury list, may easily lead to discovery of the juror's actual residence. The exception for Baltimore City is to take account of the fact that Baltimore City is both an incorporated city and the equivalent of a county, and because persons are not eligible to serve as jurors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City unless they reside in that city, their residence there is necessarily assumed.
Cross reference: See Rule 16-913 (a).
(3) Extent of Nondisclosure. An order entered under this section may direct that the information not be disclosed to (A) anyone other than the judge and counsel; (B) anyone other than the judge, counsel, and the defendant; or (C) anyone other than the judge, counsel, the defendant, and other persons specified in the order. If the court permits disclosure to counsel but not the defendant, the court shall direct counsel not to disclose the information to the defendant, except pursuant to further order of the court.
Committee note: Restrictions on the disclosure of the names and city or town of residence of jurors should be reserved for those cases raising special and legitimate concerns of jury safety, tampering, or undue harassment. See United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2nd Cir. 2007). When dealing with the issues of juror security or tampering, courts have considered a mix of five factors in deciding whether such information may be shielded: (1) the defendant's involvement in organized crime, (2) the defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors, (3) the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process, (4) the potential that, if convicted, the defendant will suffer a lengthy incarceration, and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to intimidation or harassment. See United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994). Although the possibility of a lengthy incarceration is a factor for the court to consider the court should not shield that information on that basis alone. In particularly high profile cases where strong public opinion about a pending case is evident, the prospect of undue harassment, not necessarily involving juror security or any deliberate attempt at tampering, may also be of concern.
(1) Examination. The trial judge may permit the parties to conduct an examination of qualified jurors or may conduct the examination after considering questions proposed by the parties. If the judge conducts the examination, the judge may permit the parties to supplement the examination by further inquiry or may submit to the jurors additional questions proposed by the parties. The jurors' responses to any examination shall be under oath. On request of any party, the judge shall direct the clerk to call the roll of the array and to request each qualified juror to stand and be identified when called.
(f) Peremptory Challenges. Before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the trial judge shall designate those individuals on the jury list who remain qualified after examination. The number designated shall be sufficient to provide the required number of sworn jurors, including any alternates, after allowing for the exercise of peremptory challenges pursuant to Rule 4-313. The judge shall at the same time prescribe the order to be followed in selecting individuals from the list.
(3) Discharge of Jury Member. At any time before the jury retires to consider its verdict, the trial judge may replace any jury member whom the trial judge finds to be unable or disqualified to perform jury service with an alternate in the order of selection set under section (e). When the jury retires to consider its verdict, the trial judge shall discharge any remaining alternates who did not replace another jury member.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is in part derived from former Rule 754 a and in part new.
Section (b) is derived from former Rule 751 b.
Section (c) is new.
Section (d) is new.
Section (e) is derived from former Rule 752 and 754 b.
Section (f) is derived from former Rule 753.
Section (g) is new.
Section (h) is derived from former Rule 751 d.
Credits
[Adopted April 6, 1984, eff. July 1, 1984. Amended June 21, 1984, eff. July 1, 1984; April 7, 1986, eff. July 1, 1986; Dec. 10, 1996, eff. July 1, 1997; Oct. 31, 2002, eff. Jan. 1, 2003; Dec. 4, 2007, eff. Jan. 1, 2008; June 7, 2011, eff. Sept. 1, 2011; Dec. 7, 2015, eff. Jan. 1, 2016; June 6, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016; June 20, 2017, eff. Aug. 1, 2017; June 29, 2020, eff. Aug. 1, 2020.]
MD Rules, Rule 4-312, MD R CR Rule 4-312
Current with amendments received through February 1, 2024. Some sections may be more current, see credits for details.
End of Document |