29-2003. Joint indictment; special venire; when required; how drawn.
When two or more persons shall have been charged together in the same indictment or information with a crime, and one or more shall have demanded a separate trial and had the same, and when the court shall be satisfied by reason of the same evidence being required in the further trial of parties to the same indictment or information, that the regular panel and bystanders are incompetent, because of having heard the evidence, to sit in further causes in the same indictment or information, then it shall be lawful for the court to require the clerk of the court to write the names of sixty electors of the county wherein such cause is being tried, each upon a separate slip of paper, and place the same in a box, and, after the same shall have been thoroughly mixed, to draw therefrom such number as in the opinion of the court will be sufficient from which to select a jury to hear such cause. The electors whose names are so drawn shall be summoned by the sheriff to forthwith appear before the court, and, after having been examined, such as are found competent and shall have no lawful excuse for not serving as jurors shall constitute a special venire from which the court shall proceed to have a jury impaneled for the trial of the cause. The court may repeat the exercise of this power until all the parties charged in the same indictment or information shall have been tried.
Source
Annotations
If several juries are picked at one time from a single jury panel for a series of trials, examination must be allowed if requested for good reason in subsequent trials in the series to determine if any jurors should be excused for cause. State v. Myers, 190 Neb. 466, 209 N.W.2d 345 (1973).
Where separate trials are held on joint indictment or information for commission of single offense, jurors who sat in trial of one defendant are disqualified to sit in trial of others. Seaton v. State, 106 Neb. 833, 184 N.W. 890 (1921).
Section applies only when two or more persons are charged in the same indictment and one has had a separate trial. Koenigstein v. State, 101 Neb. 229, 162 N.W. 879 (1917).
Provisions of this section are not exclusive. Aabel v. State, 86 Neb. 711, 126 N.W. 316 (1910); Barber v. State, 75 Neb. 543, 106 N.W. 423 (1906); Barney v. State, 49 Neb. 515, 68 N.W. 636 (1896).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.