FYI: I am forwarding the following. It appears I have gotten the answer for which I was searching. ElmoreRoundtree@aol.com wrote:From: ElmoreRoundtree@aol.com Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:05:31 EDT Subject: Venire To: karen95035@sbcglobal.net Hi Karen, Here's a link to an excellent paper that will shed some light on the early venire process in this country. It shouldn't be a stretch to imagine that wealthy, white landowners (and/or Crown sympathizers) with personal and political interests vested in jury verdicts, would vie for the right to purchase a seat (ticket) that would allow them to support self-interests and control the outcomes of some trials. Best Wishes, Alane Roundtree The Evolution of the American Jury "...As more and more trials having political significance appeared in colonial courts, the Crown sought every means possible to secure convictions. One of these was the selection of jurors favorable to the Crown. As we noted earlier, English courts had long accepted the notion that in criminal trials, particularly ones involving defendants with divergent political views, it was quite acceptable, even laudable, for the sheriff to choose jurors partial to the Crown... ...In Massachusetts, however, the famous Yankee ingenuity helped to thwart, at least for a time, attempts of the Crown to stack the juries with Tory sympathizers. If the sheriff drew up the jury list for the trial and defendants were not allowed to question prospective jurors about their beliefs, a logical step was to move to an earlier stage in the selection process. The Massachusetts Jury Selection Law passed by the colonial legislature in 1760 required that the venire, or panel, from which the sheriff drew his list should be chosen by a town meeting. Before people were placed on the list, they were subjected to questioning which helped to expose their character and biases. With the information acquired from these town meetings, defendants could exercise their peremptory challenges to eliminate those jurors who would be prejudiced against them. Following complaints by Tory sympathizers that “the examination of jurors is now more in the hands of the people than ever before,” the English Parliament was persuaded that the selection of jurors should be regulated by the Crown. Hence, in 1774 a parliamentary act was passed that canceled the Massachusetts Jury Selection Law, removing jury list selection from town meetings and placing it in the hands of the court. After 1774, therefore, the Crown had a more or less free hand to compose the ! jury list so as to favor the Tory cause. But the Declaration of Independence was only two years away. Not surprisingly, after the Revolution, the newly independent Americans were very aware of the importance of the jury, particularly after their experience with colonial political oppression. They recognized the jury as an instrument for the protection of individual liberty. Throughout the remainder of the 18th century and for the first half of the 19th century, the jury occupied a position of exalted status in American thinking..." http://www.law.umkc.edu/Faculty/Profiles/Kobach/AmerLegalHistory/Winter2005/The%20Evolution%20of%20the%20American%20Jury.pdf