THE OUT-OF-COURT SELECTION PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO DRAW PROSPECTIVE JURORS RANDOMLY FROM THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE CASE IS TO BE HEARD. FIRST, THE JURY LIST MUST BE RANDOMLY CHOSEN FROM THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL DISTRICT. SECOND, THESE PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE SCREENED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY QUALIFY TO CONSTITUTE THE ARRAY. THE SECOND PROCESS, THAT WHICH DETERMINES WHICH JURORS ON THE ARRAY WILL SERVE SERVE ON THE JURY, IS GOVERNED BY CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS. COUNSEL TAKE TURNS DURING THE IN-COURT SELECTION PROCESS IN DECIDING WHO WILL SERVE. EVERY PROVINCIAL STATUTE DEALS WITH THE QUESTIONS OF WHO ON THE JURY LIST IS QUALIFIED TO SERVE, DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVICE, EXEMPT, OR EXCUSED. IN ADDITION, THE CRIMINAL CODE ENDORSES QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY AND INFLEXIBLE. QUALIFICATIONS FOCUS ON AGE, CITIZENSHIP, RESIDENCY, AND ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH OR FRENCH, AS APPLICABLE. IN-COURT SELECTION FOCUSES ON CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, (I.E., PREJUDICE) AND LIMITED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. SEVERAL MAIN PROBLEMS WERE NOTED REGARDING OUT-OF-COURT SELECTION INCLUDING THE PROPERTY AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE, COMPILING COMPLETE JURY LISTS, AND LACK OF UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE COUNTRY REGARDING JUROR QUALIFICATIONS. THE TERMS EXEMPTION AND DISQUALIFICATION ARE CONFUSING AND ALSO LACK OF UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IN-COURT SELECTIVE PROCESS PROBLEMS INCLUDE THE DISCREPANCY IN PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES ALLOWED TO THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION. THERE IS A MARKED CONFUSING ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS TO THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL TO CHALLENGE PEREMPTORILY AFTER A CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE IS LOST. THERE IS AN OBVIOUS GAP IN PRESCREENING PROCEDURES THAT COULD BE REMEDIED BY THE USE OF SIMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES. CHARTS, TABLES, APPENDIXES, AND ENDNOTES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PAPER. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LWM)