At issue is whether the defendant Ampco is entitled to a new trial based on a violation of MCR 2.511 (F)(2), which prohibits discrimination during voir dire on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex for the purpose of achieving what the court believes to be a balanced, proportionate or representative jury.

But the larger question, some say, is not whether the trial court violated the rule.

Rather, the question should be, is the rule necessary at all, or does it simply muddy the waters which were made clear by Batson v. Kentucky and other case law?

Please send your comments on this issue to Editor Gary Gosselin by letter or e-mail.