SUMMARY

There have been several bills introduced in Connecticut in recent years affecting the voir dire process and the use of peremptory challenges. Only one has become law (PA 93-176). This act adjusted the number of peremptory challenges available in certain situations. We did not find any bills which would limit the use of jury trials to only felony cases. This implicates both state and federal constitutional issues.

The voir dire process varies in other states. We found a recent California law which establishes a pilot program to test procedures for a more efficient voir dire process. We also obtained a 50 state survey from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) which has data from 1993 on who conducts voir dire and the number of peremptory challenges allowed in each state. This is their most recent survey and NCSC has promised to provide us with any additional information they have.

Attached are the bills we found in our search and information from the National Center for State Courts.

VOIR DIRE

The right to question each juror individually is guaranteed by Article IV of the amendments to the Connecticut Constitution and CGS § 51-240 specifically gives parties the right to examine jurors outside the presence of other prospective jurors. House Joint Resolution No. 4, introduced in the 1997 January session of the General Assembly, proposed a change in the constitutional amendment that would eliminate the right to question each juror individually. This resolution had a public hearing but no further action was taken.

Committee Bill No. 5885, also introduced during the January 1997 session, would have amended the voir dire statute to eliminate the provision that prospective jurors be examined outside the presence of other prospective jurors. This bill also received a public hearing but no further action was taken. Proposed Bill No. 5469, from the January 1995 session, would have done the same thing but no action was taken on it.

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

Article IV of the amendments to the Connecticut Constitution also grants the right to challenge jurors peremptorily but allows the number of challenges to be set by law. Public Act 93-176 changed the law on peremptory challenges to allow the court to limit their use when there is a unity of interest among several plaintiffs or defendants. When there is a unity of interest, several parties can be considered a single party for the use of peremptory challenges. The court has the discretion to allow additional challenges and to permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.

Substitute House Bill 6596, introduced in the 1997 session, would have set a maximum of 12 peremptory challenges for each side and also required an equal number for each side. This would have limited the number of challenges available in some multi-party cases but may also have raised the number in some cases due to the requirement of having equal challenges available to both sides. The bill also would have created a presumption that parties represented by the same attorney have a unity of interest and they would have been treated as a single party for allotting peremptory challenges. All of these provisions regarding peremptory challenges were removed before the bill was acted on by the General Assembly.

CALIFORNIA'S PILOT PROGRAM

California adopted a law last year to establish a jury selection pilot program to attempt to improve the screening of prospective jurors and reduce the number of people who must come to court for interviews. More effective initial screening would improve the chances that an individual called into court would become a juror. The law sets a goal of reducing the time jurors and prospective jurors spend in court by 20% and reducing the number of prospective jurors who must come to the courthouse by one-third. The law specifies that any methods adopted must protect the rights of parties.

CR:lc