Ariz. R. Civ. P. 47

As amended through December 6, 2023

Rule 47 - Jury Selection; Juror Information; Voir Dire; Challenges

(a) Jury Selection. The initial jury panel will consist of persons summoned for jury service who have appeared. The clerk will randomly select-either manually or by electronic means-a sufficient number of persons from this group for consideration as jurors. The clerk will then prepare a list of these prospective jurors' names in random order, and deliver it to the court. The clerk will read the names of prospective jurors in the order in which they appear on the list until a jury is fully selected or the list is exhausted. If the list is exhausted before a jury is selected, the clerk will prepare an additional list of prospective jurors in the same manner as provided in this rule.

(b) Juror Information.

(1)Personal Information. Before jury selection and oral voir dire examination starts, the clerk must provide the parties with the following information for each prospective juror: name, zip code, employment status, occupation, employer, residency status, education level, prior jury experience, and felony conviction status.

(2)Confidentiality of Eligibility and Biographical Information. The clerk must obtain and maintain juror information in a manner and form approved by the Supreme Court as set forth in statute, rule, Administrative Code, or Administrative Order, and this information may only be used for the purpose of jury selection. The clerk must keep all jurors' home and business telephone numbers and addresses confidential and may not disclose them unless good cause is shown.

(3)Confidentiality of Case-Specific Written Questionnaires. All completed casespecific written questionnaires must be filed under seal. If the court requires prospective jurors to complete a case-specific written questionnaire, it must maintain any completed case-specific written questionnaires in a manner and form approved by the court as part of the case file. Before conducting oral voir dire, the prospective jurors' responses to the case-specific written questionnaires must be provided to each party by the clerk or court. Any party or counsel receiving a copy of responses to the case-specific written questionnaires must not disclose the information to the public and may disclose the information only to the extent necessary for the proper conduct of the case. When jury selection is completed, counsel for either party may retain copies of case-specific written questionnaires containing work product within their case files. Otherwise, each recipient must destroy or return to the court all copies of the responses to the case-specific written questionnaires.

(c) Voir Dire Oath and Procedure.

(1)Voir Dire Affirmation and Oath. Each prospective juror must swear or affirm that the answers provided in response to the case-specific written questionnaires are truthful. Before oral voir dire, each prospective jurors must take an oath administered by the clerk. The oath's substance must be as follows: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will truthfully answer all questions about your qualifications to serve as a trial juror in this action, so help you God." If a prospective juror elects to affirm rather than swear the oath, the clause "so help you God" must be omitted.

(2)Explanation of Voir Dire. At the beginning of any written or oral examination, the court must provide information on the purpose of voir dire, how the court and the parties will use the prospective jurors' information, and who may have access to the information prospective jurors provide. Any case-specific written questionnaires used should include this information in an introduction.

(3)Case-Specific Written Questionnaires. Unless the court orders otherwise, the court should require each prospective juror to complete a case-specific written questionnaire in a manner and form approved by the court. The case-specific written questionnaire should include questions about the prospective juror's qualifications to serve in the case, any hardships that would prevent the prospective juror from serving, and whether the prospective juror could render a fair and impartial verdict.

(4)Brief Opening Statements. Before oral voir dire begins, the court may allow or require the parties to present brief opening statements to the prospective jurors.

(5)Extent of Oral Voir Dire.

(A)Questioning by Court and Parties. The court must conduct voir dire orally. During oral examination, the court must thoroughly question the jury panel to ensure that prospective jurors are qualified, fair, and impartial. Upon request, the court must allow the parties sufficient time, with other reasonable limitations, to conduct a further oral examination of the prospective jurors. Written questions also may be used as provided in Rule 47(b)(2). A party's failure to submit questions to the court prior to examination should not be grounds to deny a party the opportunity to conduct an oral examination.

(B)Extent of Questioning. Voir dire questioning of a jury panel is not limited to the grounds listed in Rule 47(d) and may include questions about any subject that might disclose a basis for the exercise of a challenge for cause. The court retains the discretion to manage voir dire, including to preclude improper, excessive, or abusive questioning.

(d) Challenges for Cause.

(1)Grounds. A party may challenge a prospective juror for cause on one or more of the following grounds:

(A) the prospective juror lacks one or more of the required statutory qualifications specified in A.R.S. § 21-211;

(B) the prospective juror is a party's:

(i) family member;

(ii) guardian or ward;

(iii) master or servant;

(iv) employer or employee;

(v) principal or agent;

(vi) business partner or associate; or

(vii) surety or obligee on a bond or obligation;

(C) the prospective juror was a witness or served as a juror in a previous trial between the same parties in the same action; or

(D) the prospective juror has-by words or actions-shown bias or prejudice for or against any party or otherwise demonstrated their unfitness to serve as a juror.

(2)Procedure. The court must rule on challenges for cause. A prospective juror who is challenged for cause may be examined under oath by the court or, with the court's permission, by a party.

(3)Burden of Proof. The party challenging a juror for cause has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the juror cannot render a fair and impartial verdict. In making its determination, the court must consider the totality of a prospective juror's conduct and answers given during voir dire as stated on the record by the trial court.

(4)Stipulation to Remove a Prospective Juror for Cause. The court may excuse a prospective juror upon stipulation of the parties that, in their good faith belief, the prospective juror cannot render a fair and impartial verdict..

(e) Alternate Jurors.

(1)Generally. The court may order that up to 6 additional jurors be called and impaneled in the same manner as other jurors under this rule, to allow the court to later designate some of the jurors as alternates.

(2)Instructions. The court should explain to the jury why alternate jurors are needed and how they will be selected at the end of trial.

(3)Selecting and Excusing an Alternate Juror. The court will determine the identities of the alternate jurors by a drawing held in open court after closing arguments and final jury instructions are given but before deliberations begin. If an alternate juror is excused, the court must instruct him or her to continue to observe the juror admonitions until a verdict is returned or the jury is discharged.

(4)Substituting an Alternate Juror. If a deliberating juror is disqualified or unable to perform the required duties, the court may substitute an alternate juror in the juror's place. If an alternate juror joins the deliberations, the court must instruct the jury to start over in its deliberations.

(5)Additional Peremptory Challenges. In addition to the peremptory challenges otherwise allowed by law, each side is entitled to one peremptory challenge if one or two alternate jurors will be impaneled, two peremptory challenges if 3 or 4 alternate jurors will be impaneled, and 3 peremptory challenges if 5 or 6 alternate jurors will be impaneled.

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 47

Amended effective 1/1/2017; amended Dec. 8, 2021, effective 1/1/2022; amended August 29, 2022, effective 8/29/2022.

Comments [as amended 2022]

2022 Amendment to Rule 47(c)(3)

To allow the process of challenging jurors for cause to work effectively, Rule 47(c)(3) encourages the use of case-specific written questionnaires during voir dire where feasible, deferring to the court on the method and manner of administration. Courts may use paper or electronic case-specific questionnaires, administer case-specific questionnaires in advance of trial or immediately prior to oral voir dire, or use general or case-specific questions.

2022 Amendment to Rule 47(c)(5)

When feasible, the court should permit liberal and comprehensive examination by the parties, refrain from imposing inflexible time limits, and use open-ended questions that elicit prospective jurors' views narratively. The court should refrain from attempting to rehabilitate prospective jurors by asking leading, conclusory questions that encourage prospective jurors to affirm that they can set aside their opinions and neutrally apply the law.

1995 Amendment to Rule 47(a) and (e) [as amended 2022] [Formerly Rule 47(a)]

Prior to the 1995 amendment, [Rule 47(a) and (e) (Jury Selection and Peremptory Strikes) (formerly Rule 47(a)(1)) ] was read to require trial judges to use the traditional "strike and replace" method of jury selection, where only a portion of the jury panel is examined, the remaining jurors being called upon to participate in jury selection only upon excusal for cause of a juror in the initial group. Challenges for cause are heard and decided with the jurors being examined in the box. A juror excused for cause leaves the courtroom in the presence and view of the other panel members, after which the excused juror's position is filled by a panel member who responds to all previous and future questions of the potential jurors.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the trial judge to use the "struck" method of selection if the judge chooses. This procedure is thought by some to offer more advantages than the "strike and replace" method. See T. Munsterman, R. Strand and J. Hart, The Best Method of Selecting Jurors, The Judges' Journal 9 (Summer 1990); A.B.A. Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management, Standard 7, at 68-74 (1983); and "The Jury Project," Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York 58-60 (1984).

The "struck" method calls for all of the jury panel members to participate in voir dire examination by the judge and counsel. Although the judge may excuse jurors for cause in the presence of the panel, challenges for cause are usually reserved until the examination of the panel has been completed and a recess taken.

Whether using strike-and-replace or the struck method, the rules do not prescribe a method for replacing an excused prospective juror in the juror jury box with a member of the panel, deferring to the court's discretion on the appropriate method.

Comment

1961 Amendment to Rule 47(e) [Formerly Rule 47(a)(3)]

[Rule 47(e) (formerly Rule 47(a)(3)) ] now compels the plaintiff to exercise all of his peremptory challenges prior to the defendant. The amended rule provides that the parties shall exercise their peremptory challenges alternately. Under the present rule, while the plaintiff receives the same number of peremptory challenges as the defendant, the order of exercising them resulted in an obvious inequity. The purpose of the proposed rule is to eliminate this inequity by giving both parties peremptory challenges which are not only equal in number but also in practical weight and value.