VI. TRIAL
a) Initial Actions in Jury Selection.
(1) By Court. The court shall:
(A) cause the prospective jurors to swear or affirm to answer truthfully the questions they will be asked during the selection process;
(B) identify the parties and their counsel; and
(C) briefly outline the nature of the case.
(2) By Counsel. At or near the beginning of jury selection, the court shall permit counsel to introduce themselves and make brief, non-argumentative remarks that inform the potential jurors of the general nature of the case.
(b) Questioning Potential Jurors.
(1) Questioning Jurors by Court and Counsel. The court may ask potential jurors appropriate questions regarding their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case. It shall permit the parties to ask questions for the purpose of discovering bases for challenge for cause and intelligently exercising peremptory challenges.
(2) Questioning Outside Presence of Other Jurors. On motion of a party or its own initiative, the court may direct that any portion of the questioning of a prospective juror be conducted out of the presence of the tentatively selected jurors and other prospective jurors.
(c) Challenges for Cause.
(1) Procedures. After examination of any juror, the judge shall excuse that juror from the trial of the case if the court is of the opinion that there are grounds for challenge for cause. After the court has tentatively determined that the jury meets the prescribed qualifications, counsel may conduct further examination and, alternately, may exercise challenges for cause.
(2) Grounds. Any party may challenge a prospective juror for cause if:
(A) Cause Provided by Law. There exists any ground for challenge for cause provided by law;
(B) Exposure to Information. The prospective juror's exposure to potentially prejudicial information makes the person unacceptable as a juror. The court shall consider both the degree of exposure and the prospective juror's testimony as to his or her state of mind. A prospective juror who states that he or she will be unable to overcome preconceptions is subject to challenge for cause no matter how slight the exposure. If the prospective juror has seen or heard and remembers information that will be developed in the course of trial, or that may be inadmissible but is not so prejudicial as to create a substantial risk that his or her judgment will be affected, the prospective juror's acceptability depends on whether the court believes the testimony as to impartiality. A prospective juror who admits to having formed an opinion about the case is subject to challenge for cause unless the examination shows unequivocally that the prospective juror can be impartial.
(d) Exercising Peremptory Challenge. After the court conducts its initial examination and seats a tentative group of jurors not excluded for cause, the following procedure shall be followed until a full jury has been selected from those jurors and accepted by counsel:
(1) At each round of peremptory challenges, counsel shall submit simultaneously to the court either a blank sheet of paper or a sheet of paper challenging one or more jurors in the group of the first twelve (or more if additional jurors are seated under the single entity process of Rule 24(f)(2)(A)) jurors who have been seated. Neither party shall make known the fact that the party has not challenged a juror.
(2) Replacement jurors will be seated in the panel of twelve (or more if additional jurors are seated under the single entity process of Rule 24(f)(2)(A)) in the order of their selection.
(3) If necessary, additional replacement jurors will be examined for cause and, after passed, counsel will again submit simultaneously, and in writing, the name of any juror in the group of twelve (or more if additional jurors are seated under the single entity process of Rule 24(f)(2)(A)) that counsel elects to challenge peremptorily. Peremptory challenges may be directed to any member of the jury; counsel are not limited to using such challenges against replacement jurors.
(4) Alternate jurors are selected in the same manner, unless the single entity process of Rule 24(f)(2)(A) is used.
(5) The trial judge shall keep a list of those challenged. If the same juror is challenged by both parties, each party is charged with the challenge. The trial judge shall not disclose to any juror the identity of the party challenging the juror.
(e) Number of Peremptory Challenges.
(1) Death Penalty. If the offense charged is punishable by death, each defendant is entitled to fifteen peremptory challenges and the state is entitled to fifteen peremptory challenges for each defendant.
(2) Imprisonment More Than Year. If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, each defendant is entitled to eight peremptory challenges and the state is entitled to eight peremptory challenges for each defendant.
(3) Imprisonment Less Than Year or Fine. If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for less than one year or by fine or both, each side is entitled to three peremptory challenges for each defendant.
(4) Additional Jurors. For each additional juror selected pursuant to Rule 24(f), each side is entitled to one peremptory challenge for each defendant. Such additional peremptory challenges may be used against any regular or additional juror.
(f) Additional Jurors. Before jury selection begins, the court may call and impanel one or more jurors in addition to the regular jury of twelve persons. The following procedures apply:
(1) Same as Regular Jurors. The additional jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, have the same qualifications, be subject to the same examination and challenges, take the same oath, and have the same functions, powers, facilities, and privileges as the regular jurors.
(2) Methods of Impaneling Additional Jurors. The trial court may use either of the following methods to select and impanel additional jurors:
(A) Single Entity. During jury selection and trial of the case, the court shall make no distinction as to which jurors are additional jurors and which jurors are regular jurors. Before the jury retires to consider its verdict, the court shall select by lot the names of the requisite number of jurors to reduce the jury to a body of twelve or such other number as the law provides. A juror who is not selected to be a member of the deliberating jury shall be discharged when that jury retires to consider its verdict.
(B) Separate Entities. Following the selection of the jury of twelve regular jurors, the additional jurors shall be selected and impaneled as alternate jurors. Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who become unable or disqualified to perform their duties prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict.
(g) Admonitions. The court shall give the prospective jurors appropriate admonitions regarding their conduct during the selection process. After jurors are sworn, the court shall also give them appropriate admonitions regarding their conduct during the case. In both situations these shall include admonitions:
(1) not to communicate with other jurors or anyone else regarding any subject connected with the trial;
(2) not to form or express any opinion about the case until it is finally submitted to the jury;
(3) to report promptly to the court:
(A) any incident involving an attempt by any person improperly to influence any jury member; or
(B) a juror’s violation of any of the court's admonitions;
(4) not to read, hear, or view any news reports concerning the case; and
(5) to decide the case solely on the evidence introduced in the trial.
(h) List of Prospective Jurors. On request, the parties shall be furnished with a list indicating for each member of the jury panel:
(1) the member’s name, address, occupation, spouse’s name and occupation; and
(2) whether each member has served previously on a criminal court jury. Information about previous jury experience need not be provided prior to the day of trial.
Advisory Commission Comment.
This rule assures counsel the right to conduct at least part of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors. It also expressly reflects the trial court's authority to sequester prospective and tentatively selected jurors from a prospective juror being individually questioned.
A prospective juror who has formed or expressed an opinion as to the merits of the case may still be qualified to serve, but only upon an unequivocal showing of impartiality. The commission disapproves of questions tending to lead the prospective juror or suggest partiality in the first instance, and also disapproves of that procedure in "rehabilitating" the prospective juror into vocalizing impartiality. Such a prospective juror shall be held to be qualified only upon a truly unequivocal showing of impartiality.
The procedure for exercising peremptory challenges in writing is designed to insulate parties and counsel from the public exercise of a peremptory challenge. Counsel will be expected to honor the spirit of the rule and to maintain the privacy of their respective peremptory challenges.
The number of peremptory challenges is the same as that provided under present law.
The identity of and minimal information about each member of the jury panel available upon request should save time by shortening the voir dire.
Subdivision (d) permits trial judges to seat more than twelve prospective jurors for purposes of voir dire–possibly but not necessarily a number equal to twelve plus the number of peremptories to each side and the number of alternates available. All of these persons in the jury "universe" could be questioned at once. Note that if the “separate entities” procedure of Rule 24(f)(2)(B) is used, challenges are initially made to only the first twelve seated. Note also that under this procedure "replacement jurors will be seated in the panel of twelve in the order of their selection."
For example, a judge might chose to impanel thirty-two prospects. Each would be assigned a number. If during the initial round of peremptory challenges jurors number 3 and 6 are excused, juror 13 would replace 3 and juror 14 would replace 6. By this method lawyers would know who is coming up next.
Subdivision (e) gives the state the same number of challenges as the accused. For example, in most felony trials each side would have eight strikes. This amendment conforms the rule to T.C.A. § 40-18-118.
Subdivision (f) deletes the earlier limitation on the number of alternate jurors. Now more than four alternates can be selected, which may be necessary for protracted trials.
Rule 24(a)(2) gives counsel the right to make brief, non-argumentative statements near the beginning of the jury selection process. These may be made before selection begins or when counsel is first permitted to ask questions of prospective jurors. During these remarks counsel should introduce themselves and briefly describe the nature of the case. This process should give jurors a better sense of the participants in the trial and the nature of the responsibility the jurors may be chosen to undertake.
Rule 24(f)(2)(A) gives the court the option of using a procedure that eliminates the distinction between regular and alternate jurors. This procedure should facilitate juror attention to the evidence. If the court decides to use extra jurors in case a regular juror becomes unable to serve, the additional juror is combined with the other jurors for all purposes during the trial. Thus, if a court decides to use twelve jurors plus two additional jurors, all fourteen jurors are considered to be the jurors during the entire trial. Under this new rule, before the jury retires to deliberate the court will randomly deselect the additional jurors, leaving the desired number of jurors, ordinarily twelve. The deselected jurors are then discharged when the remaining jurors retire to deliberate.
Each side is given one peremptory challenge for each additional juror. Since under this model both regular and additional jurors are considered as part of a single jury, peremptory challenges may be used against any such juror, a process commonly known as “backstriking.” This procedure provides counsel with considerable flexibility in the exercise of peremptory challenges.
Advisory Commission Comment [2009].
Rule 24(e)(4) is amended to refer to "Rule 24(f)," correcting an erroneous reference to"23(f)."