defective jury selection

2000 MT 368
303 Mont. 422
15 P. 3d 938
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
SHAWN RAY HIGHPINE
1. Was Highpine denied his right to speedy trial?
2. Did the District Court err in denying Highpine's motion to strike the jury panel?
Highpine contends that the court erred in denying his motion to strike the jury panel for violations of the statutes governing drawing, selecting, and notifying jurors. He presented statistical evidence that the clerk's method resulted in the exclusion from the jury of economically disadvantaged people. Highpine also submitted evidence that nearly thirty percent of all Native American households have no telephone, and were therefore disproportionately excluded by the telephone notification of jurors for Highpine's trial. The State has withdrawn its entire argument regarding this issue.
When a statutory violation directly or materially affects the random nature or
objectivity of the jury selection process, it is substantial or material and cannot be considered non-prejudicial to the defendant. LaMere, ¶ 60. The District Court's ruling that Highpine was not prejudiced by the clerk's failure to comply with the statutory procedure is therefore in error.
We remand for a new trial with an impartial jury drawn and summoned in a manner substantially in compliance with the law.