Definition
The procedural act by which a court officer — typically the clerk — draws and announces the names of prospective jurors from the jury panel (venire) one by one until a sufficient number have been called, appeared, and accepted to constitute the trial jury. The process initiates the jury selection phase: as names are called, each prospective juror is subject to examination and challenge before being seated. The twelve (or other statutory number) whose names are first drawn, who appear, and who survive challenge are sworn as the jury for the case.
The term describes the mechanical, formal step of summoning jurors by name rather than the broader process of voir dire or empanelment, though in practice the two are closely linked and often discussed together.
Common Confusion
Calling the jury is frequently conflated with jury selection (voir dire) and with empanelment. These are sequential but distinct steps. Calling the jury is the threshold act — announcing names and confirming appearance. Voir dire is the examination that follows for each juror called. Empanelment is the completion of the process, when the full jury is sworn and seated. Historical sources sometimes use these terms loosely or interchangeably, which can mislead researchers working with older procedural records.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter this term primarily in older procedural treatises, trial court records, and nisi prius materials, where it describes a discrete clerk's function that modern practice has absorbed into the general rubric of "jury selection." The formality of the act — drawing names from a box or wheel in a fixed sequence, then calling them aloud — was procedurally significant because the order of drawing determined which jurors were first subject to challenge and which remained on the panel as alternates or replacements.
The nisi prius context is important. Black's definition situates calling the jury specifically within the nisi prius record, tying the procedure to the system of circuit court sittings under common law pleading. Researchers working with English common law materials or early American state court records will find this term embedded in that framework. Post-code procedure and the abolition of formal nisi prius distinctions in most American jurisdictions largely dissolved the term's technical distinctiveness, though the underlying act persists.
Jurisdictional variation in the mechanics — box versus wheel, sequential drawing versus random electronic selection — affects how the act is described across different periods and court systems. Researchers should not assume uniform procedure when the same term appears across jurisdictions or centuries.
One research trap: sources describing challenges to the array (a challenge to the entire panel) versus challenges to the polls (to individual jurors) will reference calling the jury as the procedural moment at which poll challenges become operative. Understanding when calling occurs in the sequence is necessary to interpret the challenge record correctly.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Rapalje & Lawrence agree on the core: calling the jury is the clerk's act of drawing and announcing juror names from a randomizing device (box or wheel) in sequence. Both emphasize the sequential and mechanical character of the act — it is not discretionary. Black's adds the nisi prius record context and the twelve-person threshold, and explicitly notes that the process is subject to interruption by challenge or excuse, which is the procedurally significant qualifier. Rapalje & Lawrence frames it from the clerk's perspective and emphasizes that the act continues until a sufficient number have "answered and been accepted," capturing the iterative nature of the process when jurors fail to appear or are excused.
Neither source addresses electronic or randomized mechanical selection methods, which are standard in modern courts. Researchers should treat these definitions as describing the classical common law procedure and adjust accordingly when working with twentieth- or twenty-first-century materials.
Jurisdictional Note
The mechanics of calling the jury — random drawing from a physical device versus electronic random selection — vary by jurisdiction and era. Federal courts and most state courts have modernized the randomization process, but the legal significance of the act (initiating the operative moment for challenges to the polls) is functionally consistent across jurisdictions.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Mistrial and Hung Jury (criminal_212) — relevant for understanding what happens when the jury-selection process fails to produce a complete jury.
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Grand Jury — Function, Procedure, and Powers (criminal_168) — for contrast with grand jury assembly procedures, which follow different calling conventions.