Rule 18.4 - Procedure for Selecting a Jury(a) Oath. The court shall give all members of the panel the following oath: You, and each of you, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will true answer give to all questions asked you by or under the direction of the court, touching your qualifications as Jurors. So help you God.
(b) Inquiry by the Court; Brief Opening Statements. The court shall initiate the examination of jurors by identifying the parties and their counsel, briefly outlining the nature of the case, and explaining the purposes of the examination. The court shall ask any questions which it thinks necessary relating to the prospective jurors' qualifications to serve in the case on trial. The parties may, before voir dire and with the court's consent, present brief opening statements to the entire jury panel. On its own motion, the court may require counsel to do so.(c)Voir dire Examination. The court shall permit the parties to conduct the examination of the prospective jurors and may itself conduct its own examination. The court may impose reasonable limitations with respect to questions allowed during a party's examination of the prospective jurors, giving due regard to the purpose of such examination.(d) Scope of Examination. The examination of prospective jurors shall be limited to inquiries directed to bases for challenge for cause and information to enable the parties to exercise intelligently their peremptory challenges.(e) Exercise of Peremptory Challenges. Following examination of the jurors, the parties shall exercise their peremptory challenges, in the order in which the jurors have been seated, as follows:(1) the court shall rule upon all challenges for cause before the parties are required to exercise peremptory challenges;(2) next, the prosecuting attorney shall tender a full panel of accepted jurors to the defendant(s), after having exercised any peremptory challenges desired;(3) next, the defendant(s) shall go down the juror list accepted by the prosecuting attorney and exercise any peremptory challenges to that panel;(4) once the defendant(s) exercise peremptory challenges to the panel tendered, the prosecuting attorney shall then be required to tender sufficient additional jurors to constitute a full panel of accepted jurors;(5) the above procedure shall be repeated until a full panel of jurors has been accepted by all parties; and(6) once the jury panel is selected, alternate jurors shall be selected following the procedure set forth above for selecting the jury panel. Constitutional challenges to the use of peremptory challenges shall be made at the time each panel is tendered. Peremptory challenges shall be made out of the hearing of the jurors, but shall be of record.
(f) Alternate Jurors. Alternate jurors, in the order in which they are called, shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become unable or disqualified to perform their duties. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged at the time the jury retires to consider its verdict.Comment
Under Rule 18.4(c), parties are entitled "to probe the prejudices of prospective jurors and investigate their thoughts on matters directly related to the issues to be tried." Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968, 989 (Miss. 2007). But under sections (c) and (d), the judge may reasonably limit the length and content of the parties' voir dire. The court should instruct counsel that voir dire is permitted to enable counsel to propound questions seeking relevant information from and about the jurors, but not to ask "hypothetical questions or attemp[t] to elicit a pledge to vote a certain way. . . ." Id. The court should be particularly sensitive to the prejudice which can arise from voir dire by an unrepresented defendant.
Section (e) continues the practice of former Rule 4.05 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court. It contemplates that all jury panel members will participate in voir dire examination by the judge and counsel. Following disposition of the for-cause challenges, the parties shall exercise their peremptory challenges, as specified. All issues under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), must be raised each time a panel is tendered. Regarding constitutional challenges to the use of peremptory strikes, see Johnson v. State, 875 So. 2d 208 (Miss. 2004); Berry v. State, 802 So. 2d 1033 (Miss. 2001).
Section (f) is consistent with Mississippi Code Section 13-5-67. Whether to dismiss a juror for good cause and to replace that juror with an alternate is within the trial court's discretion; the decision will not be disturbed absent a showing of prejudice. See Vaughn v. State, 712 So. 2d 721 (Miss. 1998). But alternates must be discharged when the jury retires to deliberate. See Folk v. State, 576 So. 2d 1243 (Miss. 1991).