Definition
A struck jury is a special jury assembled through a formal selection process in which both parties (or their counsel) alternately strike, or eliminate, names from a prepared list of eligible jurors until the required number remains to try the case. The result is a jury composed of individuals who have survived bilateral elimination rather than being drawn purely by lot.
The process typically works as follows: a larger panel of qualified jurors — historically 48 names — is compiled, often by the court or a designated officer. Each party is then permitted to strike a set number of names (commonly 12 apiece), and the jurors remaining after all strikes are made constitute the jury. Because both sides exercise strikes, the jury that results is one that neither party found objectionable enough to remove.
The struck jury procedure was historically used in cases of unusual complexity or importance, where the ordinary lot-drawn jury was considered inadequate. Today, the term survives primarily in historical legal sources, though its mechanics have been substantially absorbed into the modern voir dire and peremptory challenge system.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "A special jury, composed of persons having special knowledge or qualifications, selected by striking from the panel of jurors a certain number for each party, leaving the number required by law to try the cause."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not entered as an independent term in Webster's 1913.
The Wiktionary definition correctly captures the procedural mechanics but overstates the "special knowledge or qualifications" element. A struck jury is defined by its selection method — bilateral striking — not necessarily by any expertise requirement. Confusion with the concept of a "special jury" (which could involve qualifications such as property ownership or professional standing) is common. The struck jury is one type of special jury, but the terms are not interchangeable.
---
Common Confusion
STRUCK JURY vs. SPECIAL JURY: Historical dictionaries treat these terms as near-synonyms, and several sources define struck jury simply as "a special jury." In strict usage, however, a special jury is the broader category — any jury impaneled by a process differing from ordinary lot selection, sometimes for reasons of expertise or social standing. A struck jury refers specifically to the bilateral-striking method of assembly. Not every special jury is a struck jury, though every struck jury is, by historical usage, a species of special jury.
STRUCK JURY vs. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES: The modern peremptory challenge system is the functional successor to the struck jury procedure, but the structures differ. In struck jury practice, strikes were made from a pre-selected list, and the jury was constituted from what remained — there was no pool of alternates or sequential questioning. Modern peremptory challenges operate within a voir dire framework that differs procedurally, even if the underlying principle (allowing parties to remove jurors without stated cause) is similar.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering "struck jury" in historical sources should recognize that the term describes a now-largely-obsolete procedure that was standard in certain jurisdictions through the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. Several navigational points are critical:
Historical redirect entries. Black's 1st edition, Black's 2nd edition, Bouvier's, and Burrill's all define struck jury by redirecting to entries on "striking a jury." Researchers relying solely on the struck jury entry in any of these dictionaries will receive an incomplete picture and must follow the cross-reference to understand the full procedural mechanics.
Conflation with special jury. Because historical sources use struck jury and special jury interchangeably, searching historical records for one term may yield sources using the other. Both terms should be searched in parallel when working in pre-twentieth-century materials.
Jurisdictional survival. The struck jury procedure persisted longer in some American jurisdictions and in English practice than in others. Researchers working with state court records — particularly in civil cases involving commercial disputes or land title questions — may encounter the procedure in jurisdictions and time periods where it had already been abolished in federal practice.
Connection to jury selection doctrine. Modern constitutional doctrine governing peremptory challenges (including equal protection limitations) developed in a world where struck jury procedures had already been replaced. Historical arguments about the fairness and neutrality of struck jury selection are a distinct strand of thought that informed but does not map cleanly onto modern doctrine.
Modern usage. The phrase "struck jury" occasionally appears in contemporary sources describing the result of voir dire — a jury from which strikes have been made — but this usage is informal and does not carry the historical procedural meaning. Context is essential to determine which sense is intended.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The five historical sources in the Law Mind corpus are in close agreement on the core definition: a struck jury is a special jury constituted by striking names from a prepared list. Black's 1st edition and Burrill's use nearly identical language, suggesting a shared source or direct borrowing. Rapalje & Lawrence adds the procedural detail that the initial list was "previously selected by lot," which is a meaningful specification — it clarifies that the struck jury process was not purely party-driven but began with a randomly assembled panel from which both sides then struck.
What the historical sources share, beyond the basic definition, is brevity. Each entry functions as a redirect rather than a substantive treatment. None of the five sources provides an account of the historical origins of the procedure, its relationship to the English special jury tradition, or the reasons for its gradual displacement. Researchers seeking that history must look beyond these dictionary entries to treatises on jury practice and to the substantial English case law and procedural history underlying the practice.
Bouvier's entry is the most sparse of all, providing no independent content and directing solely to "striking." The Wiktionary definition, by contrast, is the only source to mention qualifications as a component, though this likely reflects slippage from the broader special jury concept rather than a distinct feature of the struck jury process.
No significant points of disagreement appear among the historical sources on the core definition.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The struck jury procedure was more firmly embedded in English practice and in some American states — particularly in civil litigation — than in others. Several states abolished the procedure by statute in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, replacing it with standardized voir dire and peremptory challenge rules. Federal courts operated under their own jury selection rules, and the struck jury procedure was not uniformly available in federal practice. Researchers working with specific jurisdictions should consult the applicable state statutory history to determine when and how the procedure was modified or eliminated.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia — Mistrial and Hung Jury (criminal_212): Background on jury composition and its procedural consequences.
Note: The grand jury entries (criminal_168, criminal_169) involve a distinct institution and are not directly relevant to the struck jury procedure, which applies to trial (petit) juries only.
---