Also known as: impanels · impaneled · impaneling · empanel · jury selection
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
To select and swear in a body of jurors to hear and decide a case. The court may also impanel alternate jurors to replace any who become unable or disqualified from service.
During a federal criminal trial, two seated jurors fell ill and could no longer continue. The court impaneled two of the six alternates already selected and sworn at the outset, allowing the trial to proceed without restarting jury selection.
After the prosecutor struck every Black venire member, defense counsel raised a Batson objection. The court sustained the challenge, rejected the proffered race neutral reasons, and impaneled a new venire to ensure an impartial jury.
A grand juror disclosed a personal relationship with a target of the investigation. The court excused that juror for good cause and impaneled an alternate to maintain the required twelve member quorum for indictment.
In a state civil trial the defendant used peremptory challenges to remove all female venire members. The court sustained the Equal Protection objection, disallowed the strikes, and impaneled a jury drawn from the remaining qualified panel.
In a federal civil products liability case the corporate defendant struck every Black venire member. The court found state action in the jury selection process, sustained the objection, and impaneled a jury without the discriminatory exclusions.
A modern securities fraud plaintiff demanded a jury trial. The court recognized that the claim was analogous to common law actions in which a jury would have been impaneled in 1791 and therefore granted the Seventh Amendment demand.
Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc., and eleven of its officers and directors issued a proxy statement in connection with a merger between Parklane and another corporation. Leo Shore, a stockholder of Parklane, filed a class action on behalf of stockholders in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Parklane and the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the proxy statement was false and misleading in violation of sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related SEC rules. The complaint sought damages for the class, rescission of the merger, and recovery of costs. Before Shore’s action came to trial, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate suit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The SEC complaint alleged that the proxy statement that had been issued by Parklane was materially false and misleading in essentially the same respects as those that had been alleged in the respondent's complaint. After a four-day trial, the District Court found that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading in the respects alleged, and entered a declaratory judgment to that effect. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from further violations of the securities laws and ordered them to offer rescission to shareholders who had tendered shares. The defendants did not appeal this judgment. Shore then moved for partial summary judgment in the Eastern District of New York action, asserting that the defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues resolved against them in the SEC action. The District Court denied the motion on the ground that application of collateral estoppel would deny the defendants their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a party who has had issues of fact determined against him after a full and fair opportunity to litigate in a nonjury trial is collaterally estopped from obtaining a subsequent jury trial of these same issues of fact. Because of an intercircuit conflict with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rachal v. Hill, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseUnder Rule 24(c)(1) the court may impanel up to six alternate jurors. These alternates must possess the same qualifications as regular jurors and are selected and sworn in the same manner.
Supporting sources
Rule 6(h) permits the court to excuse a grand juror temporarily or permanently. If the excusal is permanent the court may impanel an alternate to preserve the twelve juror quorum needed to return an indictment.
Supporting sources
Yes. Both prosecutors and private litigants in civil cases engage in state action when they exercise peremptory challenges. Strikes based on race or gender violate equal protection and may require the court to impanel a new venire or disallow the strikes.
Supporting sources
…than another’” may violate equal protection) (citation omitted); Castaneda v. Partida , 430 U. S. 482, 492-495 (1977) (grand jury selection). We have in any event recognized that the Free Exercise Clause protects values distinct from those protected by the Equal Protection Clause. See Hobbie , 480 U. S., at 141-142. As the…