 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MOORE v. JENKINS5/28/1991
Ct. App. 1985).
Nonetheless, in this case, we find that the method of empaneling the jury employed by the trial judge was more than a mere irregularity and was prejudicial as a matter of law. Under our system, the empaneling is performed in a side to side fashion. It is each side, not each party, which is entitled to the statutorily provided number of strikes. To allow one side an increased number offends the balance and fairness of that system. Such a practice is highly unfair to the single party side of the lawsuit because the multiple party side is allowed an inordinate influence and is allowed to dominate the jury selection process. As a result, this practice is prejudicial as a matter of law. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for a new trial.
GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.
|