Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5
COMMENT [as amendment 2022]
2022 Comment to Rule 18.5(c). To allow the process of challenging jurors for cause to work effectively, Rule 18.5(b) encourages the use of case-specific questionnaires during voir dire where feasible, deferring to the court on the method and manner of their administration. Courts may use paper or electronic questionnaires, administer questionnaires in advance of trial or immediately prior to oral voir dire, or use general or case-specific questions.
1995 Comment Rule 18.5(d) (formerly Rule 18.5(b)) [as amended 2022]. Before a 1995 amendment, Rule 18.5(b) was interpreted 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 excusing for cause a juror in the initial group. A juror excused for cause leaves the courtroom, 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.
As currently drafted, the trial judge is allowed 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(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 (1994).
The "struck" method calls for all of the jury panel members to participate in voir dire examination by the judge and counsel.
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.
2022 Comment Rule 18.5(f). 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.
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Former Rule 18.5, relating to procedure for selecting a jury, was abrogated effective January 1, 2018.