Ariz. R. Civ. P. 47
1995 Amendment to Rule 47(a) and (e) [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. Following disposition of the for cause challenges, the juror list is given to counsel for the exercise of their peremptory strikes. When all the peremptory strikes have been taken, and all legal issues arising therefrom have been resolved, the clerk calls the first eight names remaining on the list, plus the number of alternate jurors thought necessary by the judge, who shall be the trial jury.
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.