RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - Supreme Court

Staff Note (July 1, 2006 Amendment)Civ. R. 47 is amended to recognize the existence of alternative methods of jury selection andexpressly permit the use of these methods in Ohio courts. The amendments are consistent withrecommendations contained in the February 2004 Report and Recommendations of the Supreme Court ofOhio Task Force on Jury Service, at pp. 10-11.The Task Force identified two primary methods of jury selection and encouraged the use of aselection process that is efficient and enhances juror satisfaction. The Rules Advisory Committee learnedthat some judges and lawyers believe that the pre-2006 version of Civ. R. 47 precluded the use of a selectionmethod, commonly referred to as the “struck” method, whereby prospective jurors are examined as a groupand then the trial judge and attorneys meet privately to challenge jurors for cause and exercise peremptorychallenges. Two amendments to Civ. R. 47 are added to expressly permit alternative selection methods.Rule 47(B)Examination of prospective jurorsThe last sentence of Civ. R. 47(B) is added to expressly permit the examination of prospectivejurors in an array.Rule 47(C)Challenges to prospective juryThe last sentence of Civ. R. 47(C) is added to expressly afford the trial court the discretion to allowthe exercise of challenges for cause and peremptory challenges outside the hearing of the jury.Staff Note (July 1, 2005 Amendment)Civ. R. 47 is amended to reflect four recommendations of the Task Force on Jury Service. SeeReport and Recommendations of the Supreme Court of Ohio Task Force on Jury Service (February 2004).Rule 47(A)Preliminary statement of caseA new Civ. R. 47(A) is added to permit the trial judge, prior to jury selection, to provide a briefintroduction to the case to persons called as prospective jurors. See Report and Recommendations, supra,at 1 (recommending “a brief statement of the case by the court or counsel prior to the beginning of voir dire”and inclusion of “the legal claims and defenses of the parties’ in the list of instructions the court may give atthe commencement of trial”). The Rules Advisory Committee shares the views of the Task Force that thepreliminary statement may “help the jury selection process run smoothly” and “increase the satisfaction ofjurors.” Report and Recommendations, supra, at 9. The preliminary statement is intended to helpprospective jurors to understand why certain questions are asked during voir dire, recognize personal bias,and give candid responses to questions during voir dire.The Committee recognizes that there may be instances in which the brief introduction isunnecessary; thus the rule vests discretion with the trial judge as to whether an introduction will be providedin a particular case. The rule also requires the trial judge to consult with the parties as to whether to providethe introduction and the content of the introduction. The consultation is required in recognition that theparties can aid the trial judge in determining whether a statement is necessary, developing the content of thestatement, and ascertaining the claims and defenses the parties will put forth during trial.Former divisions (A), (B), and (C) of Civ. R. 47 are relettered as divisions (B), (C), and (D),respectively.Rule 47(C)Challenges to prospective jurorsNew Civ. R. 47(C) (formerly Civ. R. 47(B)) is amended to make two related principles regardingperemptory challenges more clear. One principle is that failure of a party to exercise a given peremptory