a term of grand or petit juror service upon a finding of hardship, inconvenience, or public necessity.” (Emphasis added.) Section 607A.3(2) defines the word “court” to mean “the district court of this state and includes, when the context requires, a judicial officer as defined in section 602.1101.” Section 602.1101(8) defines a judicial officer as “a supreme court justice, a judge of the court of appeals, a district judge, a district associate judge, or a magistrate.” A court attendant is not a judicial officer and, accordingly, is not included in chapter 607A’s definition of “court.” Therefore, the State did not comply with the requirements of section 607A.6 in selecting a jury panel for Chidester’s trial. See People v. Langdon, 54 Cal.App.3d 384, 126 Cal.Rptr. 575, 578-79 (1976) (<HOLDING>); State v. Martel, 141 N.H. 599, 689 A.2d 1327,
holding statute empowering judge to excuse potential jurors was violated by board of supervisors action in exempting persons residing in a certain geographical area of district from serving on jury trial held in another part of district holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district holding defendants right to counsel not violated despite district court denying pretrial request by the defendant to discharge his attorney where request was made on eve of trial and was openly part of attempt to have the district judge recuse himself and delay trial holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors holding statute allowing court to excuse jurors from jury duty and defining court as a judge was violated when clerk excused jurors without obtaining court approval of the excuses granted