Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 48
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48, as amended in 2007 and 2009, except for language in section (a), which specifies that the decision to empanel additional jurors rests with the court.
Section (c) regarding polling is new to the federal and Superior Court civil rules. In Harris v. United States, 622 A.2d 697 (D.C. 1993), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals examined under what conditions a trial court should require a jury to resume deliberations after a juror dissents in open court during a jury poll. The court noted that there is less coercive potential if the dissenting juror is earlier in line and the poll is terminated. Id. at 703.
COMMENT
Identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 except that a jury demand under SCR Civ 38 is conclusively presumed to be to a jury of 6 persons unless the demand expressly states otherwise.