In a case of first impression, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Muslims and/or Pakistanis are members of an “ethnic” group protected from invidious discrimination during jury selection.

The 3rd DCA last week reaffirmed the trial lawyer’s right to question prospective jurors on matters that go to the heart of a party’s case.

Defense Counsel, in a criminal case, used all of his peremptory strikes, and then accepted the jury and an alternate. Before the jury was sworn, Counsel attempted to withdraw a strike previously used against a juror, and then backstrike another juror. The trial judge refused to permit this kind of “backstriking.”

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(c)(1) was amended and became effective March 1, 2006, to provide a statutory basis for a challenge for cause against a potential juror who is related (within the third degree) to a Fabre Defendant. The new rule reads, in pertinent part:

The 3rd DCA reversed a criminal conviction simply because the trial judge failed to conduct a requested Neil inquiry concerning a challenge directed at a “white male.” The trial was apparently “otherwise error free” and “decided by a clearly impartial jury.”