Lowery v. State
The Third DCA affirmed Lowery's manslaughter and armed robbery/burglary convictions, holding he failed to preserve his challenge to the trial court's use of a 'Google random number generator' jury-selection method because he did not exhaust peremptories, identify an objectionable seated juror, or request an additional strike, per the court's recent Sikes decision. Judge Gordo concurred in result but wrote separately to distinguish two distinct jury-selection challenges—an objection to the method itself (preserved under Rock) versus an objection that the method impaired effective use of peremptories (unpreserved under Sikes/Ter Keurst)—and conducted an extensive originalist/historical analysis concluding the random jury-box method is constitutionally permissible.
Key facts
- Lowery was convicted of manslaughter and armed robbery/burglary in trial court; he appealed, challenging the trial court's use of a 'Google random number generator' jury-selection method.
- Lowery did not exhaust his peremptory challenges, did not identify a specific objectionable seated juror, and did not request an additional strike or object to the jury's composition before it was sworn.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful for practitioners litigating jury-selection procedure objections, particularly the increasingly common 'random jury-box' or randomized calling method used in Miami-Dade and elsewhere. It clarifies… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.