Vt. R. Crim. P. 24

As amended through October 8, 2024
Rule 24 - Trial Jurors
(a) Examination of Jurors.
(1) The court at any time may direct the clerk to distribute to prospective jurors written questionnaires to assist the voir dire examination. The voir dire questionnaire shall be prepared by the court administrator and shall solicit relevant information with only such questions as are necessary to empanel fair and impartial jurors. The court may direct the clerk to distribute a more detailed questionnaire in a particular case.
(2) A record of the information provided in response to a written questionnaire distributed pursuant to this rule shall be open to the parties to the proceeding. excepting supplemental information supplied to determine whether the individual meets the mental and physical demands of jury service for any individual who has been excused based upon that supplemental information. Public inspection of the content of any completed juror questionnaire shall be as provided in the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records.
(3) The clerk, or some other indifferent person designated by the court, shall draw the names of twelve prospective jurors who shall be seated in the jury box and examined. The parties or their attorneys shall conduct the examination under the supervision of the court, and the court may ask additional questions to supplement the inquiry, or, upon agreement of the parties, may conduct the examination.
(b) Challenges for Cause. Challenges for cause of individual prospective jurors may be made at any time prior to the impanelment of the jury. When a prospective juror is challenged and excused for cause, a replacement juror shall be drawn, seated, and examined as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule.
(c) Peremptory Challenges.
(1)Manner of Exercise. After twelve prospective jurors have been seated in the jury box and examined, the parties or their attorneys may exercise their peremptory challenges. Such challenges shall be exercised by removing the name of the juror challenged from a list of the prospective jurors prepared by the clerk.
(2)Order of Exercise. Peremptory challenges shall be exercised one by one, alternatively, with the state exercising the first challenge. A challenge not exercised in turn is extinguished. In any action in which there are several defendants the order of challenges shall be as determined by the court.
(3)Number. Each party shall be entitled to six peremptory challenges numbering the greater of six, or one half of the total number of jurors and alternates to be selected per subdivisions (d) or (f), rounding up. After a party has exercised six peremptory challenges, any additional peremptory challenges must be used only to remove prospective alternate jurors.
(d) Alternate Jurors.
(1)In General. The court may direct that a reasonable number of jurors in addition to the regular jury to be called and impanelled to sit as 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 or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties.
(2)Procedure. Alternate jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, shall have the same qualifications, shall be subject to the same examination and challenges, shall take the same oath, and shall have the same functions, powers, facilities, and privileges as the regular jurors.
(3)Discharging or Retaining Alternate Jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror may be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict, or the court may retain alternate jurors after the jury retires to deliberate. The court shall ensure that a retained alternate does not discuss the case with anyone until that alternate replaces a juror or is discharged.
(4)Replacement of Jurors after Jury Retires. If, after the jury retires to deliberate, a juror becomes or is found to be unable or disqualified to perform his or her duties and is discharged, the court shall have discretion to replace that juror with a retained alternate. The court may decline to replace a juror even if the failure to do so will cause a mistrial. If an alternate replaces a juror after deliberations have begun, the court shall instruct the jury to begin its deliberations anew.
(5)Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to one peremptory challenge in addition to those otherwise allowed, whenever one or two alternate jurors are to be impanelled, to two peremptory challenges in addition to those otherwise allowed whenever more than two alternate jurors are to be impanelled, and to one additional peremptory challenge for each instance in which more than two additional alternate jurors are to be impanelled, consistent with the provisions of paragraph (c)(3). Such additional peremptory challenges may be used against alternate jurors only, and the other peremptory challenges allowed by law shall not be used against an alternate juror.
(e) Alternative Procedure for Replacement Jurors. The court may direct that no more than twelve replacement jurors also be drawn when the original twelve prospective jurors or any alternates are drawn. The replacement jurors shall be examined along with the prospective jurors or alternates. Replacement jurors shall, in the order they were seated, replace prospective or alternate jurors when they have been excused.
(f) Alternate Procedure for Alternate Jurors. The court may direct that a reasonable number of not less than thirteen jurors be selected in the manner provided in subdivisions (a)(3), (b), and (c) of this rule. Each party shall then be entitled to additional peremptory challenges in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(3). Those who are to be alternate jurors will be determined by random selection at the completion of the trial but before submission of the case to the jury for deliberations.

Vt. R. Crim. P. 24

Amended Dec. 8, 1981, eff. 3/1/1982; April 13, 1995, eff. 7/1/1995; Oct. 25, 2000, eff. 1/1/2001; June 26, 2002, eff. 9/1/2002; Dec. 18, 2007, eff. 2/19/2008; Nov. 12, 2008, eff. 1/12/2009; Feb. 24, 2010, eff. 4/26/2010; amended April 14, 2021, eff. 6/14/2021; amended Aug. 9, 2022, eff. 9/6/2022.

Reporter's Notes-2009 Amendment

New Rule 24(f) permits the court to select a sufficient number of jurors to make up both a jury of twelve and between one and four alternates without predetermining the identity of the alternates. Those who are to be designated as alternates would be determined by random selection once the trial is complete but prior to submission of the case to the jury. The parties would be entitled to six peremptory challenges each pursuant to Rule 24(c)(3) and, consistent with Rule 24(d), one additional peremptory challenge if one or two additional jurors are selected and another additional peremptory if three or four additional jurors are selected. Thus, each side would have a total of seven peremptory challenges if thirteen or fourteen jurors are selected and eight peremptories if fifteen or sixteen jurors are selected.

In State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128, ¶¶ 30-31, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that this alternative procedure was prohibited by Rule 24(d). By this amendment, that decision is no longer controlling. Experience has shown that juror satisfaction and attention increase if alternates are not predetermined and all sitting jurors understand that they are as likely as any juror to participate in deliberations. Although currently some judges will not directly advise predetermined alternates of their status at the beginning of the trial, experience indicates that the alternates become aware of this predetermination in any event.

Reporter's Notes-2021 Amendment

V.R.Cr.P. 24(a)(2) and V.R.C.P. 47(a)(2) are concurrently amended to delete reference to the circumstances in which responses of potential jurors to written questionnaires, and the specific content thereof, may be disclosed to the public.

Public access to information contained in responses to written questionnaires may implicate lawful privacy interests or result in disclosure of information that is not subject to public access by law. For example, information subject to patient privilege that is divulged by a potential juror in the context of a request for excuse from service, as pertains to the requirement that a juror must meet the "mental or physical" demands of jury service. See 4 V.S.A. § 962(a)(4). Note that the amendments to paragraph (a)(2) in both rules preclude party and attorney access to such information, which is typically in the form of health-care provider information subject to patient privilege for jurors who have been excused from the venire in advance of jury selection by reason of mental or physical inability to serve. This preclusion has been a feature of Juror Qualification Rule 4(c) as to public access since 2001; the present amendment extends the preclusion to parties and attorneys as well. However, the amendment clarifies that parties and attorneys are accorded access to this supplemental information for individuals, who have not been excused upon request after submitting such information, to enable full and fair inquiry as to that potential juror's service in a given case. Party and attorney access to supplemental information may otherwise be sought subject to a judicial finding of good cause pursuant to Vermont Rule for Public Access to Court Records 6(b)(19).

The former last sentence of (a)(2) is deleted, in recognition that the determination of whether juror questionnaire information is subject to public access, and the process and standards for such determination, are properly within purview of the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records, which are concurrently amended to address such process and standards. See V.R.P.A.C.R. 6(b)(19). These amendments are also adopted concurrently with amendments to Rules 4 and 10 of the Rules Governing Qualification, List, Selection and Summoning of All Jurors.

Note that under the existing criminal and civil procedural rules, which do address public access to "physical records" of juror information, access to any juror information held in electronic form is not publicly accessible. This particular provision has also been applicable since 2001 amendments, which were made with the purpose of making juror questionnaires "less intrusive" than under then-prevailing practice. This prohibition is continued.