NOTES TO RULE 24
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1944
Note to Subdivision (a). This rule is similar to Rule 47(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C., Appendix) and also embodies the practice now followed by many Federal courts in criminal cases. Uniform procedure in civil and criminal cases on this point seems desirable.
Note to Subdivision (b). This rule embodies existing law, 28 U.S.C. 424 (now 1870) (Challenges), with the following modifications. In capital cases the number of challenges is equalized as between the defendant and the United States so that both sides have 20 challenges, which only the defendant has at present. While continuing the existing rule that multiple defendants are deemed a single party for purposes of challenges, the rule vests in the court discretion to allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants and to permit such challenges to be exercised separately or jointly. Experience with cases involving numerous defendants indicates the desirability of this modification.
Note to Subdivision (c). This rule embodies existing law, 28 U.S.C. (former) 417a (Alternate jurors), as well as the practice prescribed for civil cases by Rule 47(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C., Appendix), except that the number of possible alternate jurors that may be impaneled is increased from two to four, with a corresponding adjustment of challenges.
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 2002 AMENDMENT
The language of Rule 24 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only, except as noted below.
In restyling Rule 24(a), the Committee deleted the language that authorized the defendant to conduct voir dire of prospective jurors. The Committee believed that the current language was potentially ambiguous and could lead one incorrectly to conclude that a defendant, represented by counsel, could personally conduct voir dire or additional voir dire. The Committee believed that the intent of the current provision was to permit a defendant to participate personally in voir dire only if the defendant was acting pro se. Amended Rule 24(a) refers only to attorneys for the parties, i.e., the defense counsel and the attorney for the government, with the understanding that if the defendant is not represented by counsel, the court may still, in its discretion, permit the defendant to participate in voir dire. In summary, the Committee intends no change in practice.
Finally, the rule authorizes the court in multi-defendant cases to grant additional peremptory challenges to the defendants. If the court does so, the prosecution may request additional challenges in a multi-defendant case, not to exceed the total number available to the defendants jointly. The court, however, is not required to equalize the number of challenges where additional challenges are granted to the defendant.
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1987 AMENDMENT
The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF PROPOSED 1977 AMENDMENT
Section 2(c) of Pub. L. 95-78, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 320, effective Oct. 1, 1977, provided that: "The amendment proposed by the Supreme Court (in its order of Apr. 26, 1977) to rule 24 of such Rules of Criminal Procedure is disapproved and shall not take effect."
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES - 1966 AMENDMENT
Experience has demonstrated that four alternate jurors may not be enough for some lengthy criminal trials. See e.g., United States v. Bentvena, 288 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1961); Reports of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 1961, p. 104. The amendment to the first sentence increases the number authorized from four to six. The fourth sentence is amended to provide an additional peremptory challenge where a fifth or sixth alternate juror is used.
The words "or are found to be" are added to the second sentence to make clear that an alternate juror may be called in the situation where it is first discovered during the trial that a juror was unable or disqualified to perform his duties at the time he was sworn. See United States v. Goldberg, 330 F.2d 30 (3rd Cir. 1964), cert. den. 377 U.S. 953 (1964).