(a) EXAMINING JURORS. The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors or may itself do so. If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the parties or their attorneys to make any further inquiry it considers proper, or must itself ask any of their additional questions it considers proper.
Rule 47.Selecting Jurors
Group VI: Trials · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 47 covers jury selection in D.C. Superior Court civil trials, letting the court decide who examines prospective jurors, guaranteeing each party 3 peremptory challenges (with related parties sometimes treated as one), and allowing the court to excuse a juror for good cause during trial or deliberation.
Full Text of Rule 47
(b) PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. The court must allow each party to exercise 3 peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or panel or to individual jurors, must be determined by the court.
(c) EXCUSING A JUROR. During trial or deliberation, the court may excuse a juror for good cause.
Comments
2017 Amendments:
This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47, as amended in 2007, except that section (b) includes language from 28 U.S.C. § 1870 instead of just a reference to the statute.
Comment:
Identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 47(a) leaves the mechanics of questioning prospective jurors to the court's discretion: the judge may let the parties or their attorneys examine the panel directly, or conduct the examination personally. If the court handles the questioning itself, it still has to let the parties ask further questions it considers proper, or ask their additional questions on their behalf — so a party is never entirely shut out of the process even when the judge takes the lead.
Rule 47(b) guarantees each party 3 peremptory challenges — strikes that do not require a stated reason. When several plaintiffs or several defendants are on the same side, the court can treat them as a single party for this purpose, or instead allow extra peremptory challenges and let them be used separately or jointly, whichever fits the case. Every challenge for cause or favor, whether aimed at the whole panel or an individual juror, is decided by the court rather than left to the parties.
Rule 47(c) addresses what happens once trial is underway: the court may excuse a juror for good cause during either the trial itself or the jury's deliberations. That authority lets the court respond to problems that surface only after the jury has been seated — illness, misconduct, or another disqualifying development — without requiring the trial to restart.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who gets to question prospective jurors — the lawyers or the judge?
Rule 47(a) gives the court discretion either way: it may permit the parties or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors directly, or conduct the examination itself. If the judge does the questioning, the parties can still ask further questions the court considers proper.
How many peremptory challenges does each side get?
Rule 47(b) guarantees each party 3 peremptory challenges. Multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants can be treated as a single party for this purpose, or the court can allow additional challenges to be exercised separately or jointly.
Who decides a challenge for cause against a juror?
Rule 47(b) states that all challenges for cause or favor, whether directed at the array or panel as a whole or at an individual juror, are determined by the court.
Can a juror be removed after the trial has already started?
Yes. Rule 47(c) allows the court to excuse a juror for good cause during trial or during deliberations.
Do I need a reason to use a peremptory challenge?
Rule 47 refers to these strikes as peremptory challenges precisely because they do not require the stated cause that a challenge for cause does — that distinction is what separates them from challenges for cause or favor, which the court decides on the merits.
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: peremptory challenges dc superior court civilvoir dire jury selection dc rule 47excusing a juror during trial dcchallenge for cause jury dc civil casehow many jury strikes dc superior court