Vt. R. Crim. P. 24
Vt. R. Crim. P. 24
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.