Commonwealth v. Doss, 510 S.W.3d 830

James Doss, an African-American, was tried in Jefferson Circuit Court on a felony theft charge and acquitted; the Commonwealth sought certification of law after acquittal.
Initial venire: 41 randomly selected prospective jurors; only one was African‑American (≈2.4%); Doss moved to dismiss the venire for not representing a fair cross section but offered no statistical or pool‑selection evidence of systematic exclusion.
After voir dire and challenges, the lone African‑American was among four jurors randomly excused, leaving a petit jury with no African‑American members; Doss renewed his motion and argued the imbalance showed prima facie discrimination.
Trial judge, despite acknowledging compliance with selection rules and lack of evidence of systemic exclusion, dismissed the entire properly selected venire and convened a new venire the next day that included more African‑American jurors.
During the second venire, the judge barred reference to statements made by prospective jurors during the prior day’s voir dire; the Commonwealth objected to that blanket prohibition.
Court certified two legal questions for review: (1) whether a judge may dismiss a randomly selected venire for being racially unrepresentative absent proof the pool failed the fair‑cross‑section requirement; and (2) whether a judge may bar referring to jurors’ prior voir dire statements during subsequent voir dire.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge may dismiss a randomly selected venire because its racial composition appears unrepresentative despite lawful procedures and no evidence of systemic exclusion	Doss: unusual racial imbalance justifies dismissal to secure a petit jury including at least one African‑American and shifts burden to Commonwealth	Commonwealth: dismissal is improper where selection rules were followed and no proof the jury wheel or pool excluded groups	Court: No. Judge abused discretion; cannot dismiss a properly and randomly selected venire absent evidence the pool failed fair‑cross‑section requirement
Whether judge may bar parties during voir dire from examining or challenging jurors about statements they made during a prior voir dire in same case	Commonwealth: may inquire into prior responses to assess bias, especially for jurors who served or were struck previously	Doss: trial court limited references to prior voir dire to avoid prejudice and unnecessary repetition	Court: Trial judge may impose reasonable limits, but a blanket prohibition is an abuse of discretion; parties generally may examine about prior voir dire statements

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishes prohibition on racial exclusion from juries and burden-shifting framework)
Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (recognizes purposeful racial exclusion of jurors violates Equal Protection)
Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (fair cross section on the venire helps assure an impartial jury)
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (jury selection must be drawn from a fair cross section of the community)
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (impracticability of ensuring every distinct community voice on a petit jury)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (defendant entitled to jury selected by nondiscriminatory criteria even if not of defendant's race)
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (state may not exclude jurors on racial grounds)