RULE 47. JURORS
(a) Examination of Prospective
The court may call for examination an initial venire of prospective jurors of a
to the number of jurors necessary for the jury plus the number of peremptory challenges
available to the parties. A general examination of prospective jurors is optional with the trial
judge, but any examination by the trial judge does not in any manner limit the right of the
parties to conduct the examination. If the examination is not conducted by the judge it shall
be conducted by the parties. If, after the parties have exercised their challenges, the venire
size is larger than the number required under Rule 48, the excess number of jurors will be
excused in inverse order in which they were called. The court has the discretion to allow
singular examination of prospective jurors in chambers.
(1) Prospective Jurors. Unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, the court must call for examination a number of prospective jurors equal to the number of jurors necessary for the jury plus the number of peremptory challenges available to the parties. If, after the parties have exercised their challenges, there are more jurors than required by Rule 48, the excess jurors must be excused in the inverse order in which they were called.
(2) Examination. The court may examine prospective jurors itself and it must permit the parties or their attorneys to make their own examination. The court may allow individual examination of prospective jurors in chambers.
Peremptory Challenges Challenges for Cause.
Each side is entitled to four (4) peremptory challenges when a six (6) person jury is
impaneled and four (4) peremptory challenges when a nine (9) person jury is to be
impaneled. If a side consists of more than one party, that side is entitled to a total of four (4)
peremptory challenges when a six (6) person jury is to be impaneled and to a total of four
(4) peremptory challenges when a nine (9) person jury is to be impaneled. All parties on a
side must join in the challenge before it can be made unless the trial judge, for good cause
shown, permits otherwise. If parties on a side have essentially adverse or antagonistic
interests the trial judge may grant the parties on that side additional peremptory challenges.
If no peremptory challenges are taken until the panel is full, they must be taken by the parties
alternately, commencing with the plaintiff; but a waiver as to the jurors then impaneled is
not a waiver of the right to challenge jurors subsequently impaneled.
If the court, after examination of any prospective juror, finds grounds for challenge for cause, the court must excuse that prospective juror. If the court does not excuse a prospective juror for cause, any party may make a challenge for cause.
Challenges for cause Peremptory Challenges.
If the trial judge, after the examination of any juror, is of the opinion that grounds
challenge for cause are present, the judge should excuse that juror from the trial of the case.
If the judge does not excuse the juror, any party may challenge the juror for cause as
provided by law.
Regardless of the size of the jury or the number of parties on a side, each side is entitled to four peremptory challenges. If the parties on a side have adverse or antagonistic interests, the court may grant them additional peremptory challenges.
All parties on a side must join in the challenge before it can be made unless the court, for good cause, permits otherwise. Peremptory challenges must be taken by the parties alternately, commencing with the plaintiff.
(d) Alternate Jurors.
(1) In General. The court may direct that one or
jurors in addition to the regular panel
be called and impaneled to sit as alternate jurors. Alternate jurors in the order in
are called shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider
become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties.
(2) Procedure. Alternate jurors
shall must 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
principal jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror shall
discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict, unless the parties otherwise agree.
(3) Peremptory Challenges. If one or
2 two alternate
jurors are called each side is entitled
to one peremptory challenge in addition to those otherwise allowed by this rule. The
additional peremptory challenge may be used only against an alternate juror ,
and the other
peremptory challenges allowed by this rule shall may not be used
against the alternates.
Rule 47 was amended, effective January 1, 1979; January 1, 1988; September 1, 1990; March 1, 2003;________________________.
Rule 47 was amended, effective _______________, in response to the December 1, 2007, revision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
Rule 47 was amended, effective _______________, to interchange subdivisions (b) and (c). Former subdivision (b) became subdivision (c), and former subdivision (c) became subdivision (b).
Subdivision (a) was amended, effective January 1, 1988, to provide for a uniform jury
However, this procedure is discretionary with the court.
(b)(c), formerly subdivision (b), was amended,
effective September 1, 1990,
to reduce the number of peremptory challenges from six to four per side. Subdivision (b)
was adopted effective January 1, 1979, and is a synthesis of N.D.C.C. § 28-14-05, which
is superseded, and the supreme court's opinion in Staiger v. Gaarder, 258 N.W.2d 641 (N.D.
(c)(b), formerly subdivision (c), was adopted,
effective January 1, 1979, and
was derived from N.D.R.Crim.P. 24.
Subdivision (d) was amended, effective March 1, 2003, to clarify that each "side" is entitled to assert one peremptory challenge against an alternate juror.
Sources: Supreme Court Conference Minutes of January 17, 1990; September 8, 1987; Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of January 28-29, 2010, pages 5-6; September 24-25, 2009, pages 16-18, 19; April 25-26, 2002, page 16; May 21-22, 1987, pages 7-11; February 19-20, 1987, pages 19-20; May 25-26, 1978, pages 1-3, 25-26; March 16-17, 1978, pages 19-20; Fed.R.Civ.P. 47; N.D.R.Crim.P. 24; N.D.C.C. § 28-14-05 (superseded).
N.D.R.C. 1943 §§ 28-1404, 28-1409; N.D.C.C.
Considered: N.D.C.C. § 28-14-06.
Cross Reference: N.D.R.Civ.P. 38 (Jury Trial of Right) and N.D.R.Civ.P. 48 (Juries of Less than Twelve -- Majority Verdict); N.D.R.Crim.P. 24(b)(2); Sections 28-14-03.1 (Size of Juries in Civil Cases), and N.D.C.C. § 28-14-06 (Challenges for Cause -- Grounds).