King v. State Roads Commission of the State Highway Administration

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a new trial was warranted when trial judge struck five jurors, thereby violating Rule 543's requirements for peremptory challenges
• holding that a new trial was warranted when trial judge struck five jurors, thereby violating Rule 543’s requirements for peremptory challenges
• noting that prejudice may be presumed where deviation from prescribed court procedure impairs or denies full exercise of peremptory challenges
• erroneous impairment of parties’ exercise of peremptory challenges with result that trial judge “had more to say about who would not sit on the panel than either of the parties”
• significant procedural irregularity impaired or denied appellant’s full exercise of the peremptory challenge privilege
• when trial court erroneously struck five extra jurors to obtain panel of 12 after both parties exercised peremptory challenges, prejudice would be presumed, provided that, on remand, the record reflected that appellant objected to trial court’s procedure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).