IN RE TRANSITION RULE 17. EXCUSING PROSPECTIVE STATE-WIDE GRAND JURORS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted Transition Rule 17 to facilitate the excusing of prospective state-wide grand jurors.
A state-wide grand jury was being impaneled, and the process for excusing prospective jurors due to hardship had become an emergency matter. The court…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Grand Jury Selection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Chapter 73-123, Fla.Stat., Ch. 906, F.S.A., authorizes the presiding judge to excuse prospective state-wide grand jurors upon a showing that service on the state-wide grand jury will result in an unreasonable personal or financial hardship by virtue of the location or projected length of the grand jury investigation.
A state-wide grand jury is presently being impaneled and the method of granting excuses to a prospective state grand juror has become an emergency matter. In order to facilitate the excusing of prospective jurors, the appended rule, as Transition Rule 17, is hereby adopted.
This rule shall take effect upon being filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. TRANSITION RULE 17. EXCUSING PROSPECTIVE STATE-WIDE GRAND JURORS.
The presiding judge may issue an order appointing the chief judge of the judicial circuit in which a propective grand juror resides to make the determination as to whether or not service on the state-wide grand jury will result in an unreasonable personal or financial hardship by virtue of the location or projected length of the grand jury investigation.
In addition, the chief judges are to .determine whether or not a prospective grand juror fails to meet, as of December 8, 1973, the qualifications of Chapter 90S and Chapter 906 of Florida Statutes or fails to meet the qualifications as a juror in the county in which he or she resides. This determination shall be made only for those prospective grand jurors who contact the chief judge and claim disqualification.
The chief judges shall excuse any prospective grand juror who requests and is qualified for exemption from grand jury -service under Chapters 90S or 906, of Florida Statutes, or from service as a juror in the county in which he resides.
The chief judge shall inform the presiding judge without delay as to any such determination.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coons v. Cathlyn Ann Coons, 765 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…so that Florida may avoid intrusion upon the rights and interest of a sister state that might otherwise be paramount while still insuring the integrity of its judicial decrees as against future collateral attack in distant courts. Caizza v. Caizza, 291 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla.1974). As the complainant below, Appellee had the burden to prove that she met the durational residency requirement. See Fazio v. Fazio, 66 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1953); Held v. Held, 151 Fla. 583, 10 So. 2d 129 (1942). Whether or not a complaina…
-
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 552 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…so that Florida may avoid intrusion upon the rights and interest of a sister state that might otherwise be paramount while still insuring the integrity of its judicial decrees as against future collateral attack in distant courts. Caizza v. Caizza, 291 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 907, 95 S.Ct. 825, 42 L.Ed.2d 836 (1975). Accord Shiffman v. Askew, 359 F.Supp. 1225, 1234-35 (M.D.Fla.1973), aff'd, Makres v. Askew, 500 F. 2d 577 (5th Cir.1974). The complaining party bears the burden of pr…
-
Lemon v. Lemon, 314 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…la.App. 1st 1975, 310 So. 2d 431. The Florida residency requirement may not be established by the uncorrobor [*624] ated testimony of the petitioner. Sec. 61.-052(2) F.S.; Phillips, supra; Kutner, supra; Wise, supra. See Caizza v. Caizza, Fla. 1974, 291 So. 2d 569. Since petitioner failed to establish the statutory prerequisite of residence, the lower court lacked jurisdiction to enter a final judgment. Reversed. McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence