Venire

[W]here a Venire omits Part of the Iſſue, or any of the Parties; if a Juror is named in the Habeas Corpora, by a Name different from that in the Venire; or a Juror return'd on ſuch a Panel is omitted in the Habeas Corpora; or a Venire or Diſtringas are iſſued without any Award on the Roll to warrant them; it will be ill, and is ſaid to be a Diſcontinuance.

The crown may have as many venires as it pleases. Suppose there had been no venire at all, would a defence have aided that error? In the case of Young and Watson there was no return to the venire, and yet there was held error after verdict. The Court might have granted a new rule after the old one was expired, and a venire de novo would have issued in that case, 2 Roll. Ab. 720, p. 2.

A venire de novo may be granted for a defect which does not appear on the record; as, for instance, if the jury improperly eat or drink before they deliver their verdict […] In Dovey v. Hobson[…], the Court awarded a venire de novo where a juryman was sworn who had not been summoned. In Arundel's case[…], a venire de novo was awarded where the jury had been summoned from a wrong county.

[page 1941] Where a venire has been issued, the justice cannot proceed to try the cause without a jury. Sebring v. Wheedon, 8 Johns. 460. Day v. Wilber, 2 Cai. 134. […] [page 1942] Where a venire is demanded by either party, the justice may deliver it himself to the constable, to be executed; but if he delivers it to the party, and he does not appear at the time to which the cause is adjourned for trial, and the venire is not returned, the justice may consider the suppression of the venire by the party as a waiver of the trial by jury, and proceed to hear and decide the cause himself, as if no venire had been demanded or issued. Coon v. Snyder, 19 Johns. 384.

[T]he jury that in 1968 convicted the pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock and others protesting the Vietnam War of conspiring to violate the Military Service Act of 1967 by advocating the destruction of draft cards […] was devoid of women, largely because the venire from which this jury was formed contained only 9% women. A subsequent analysis of the distribution of the proportion of women in the venires of all the judges in the district showed that the venires for one judge – the Spock trial judge – had a distribution centered about an unusually low proportion of women.

The Spock defense pointed to the venire for their trial, which contained only one woman. That woman was released by the prosecution, making an all-male jury. Defense argued that the judge in the trial had a history of venires in which women were systematically underrepresented, contrary to the law. They compared this district judge's recent venires with the venires of six other Boston area district judges.

During jury selection, Abbott used its first peremptory strike against the only self-identified gay member of the venire. […] This appeal's central question is whether equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in jury selection.