47.01 Examination of Jurors. The court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination. At or near the beginning of jury selection, the court shall permit counsel to introduce themselves and make brief, non-argumentative remarks that inform the potential jurors of the general nature of the case. The court, upon motion of a party or on its own motion, may direct that any portion of the questioning of a prospective juror be conducted out of the presence of the tentatively selected jurors and other prospective jurors.
Rule 47.Jurors
Last amended July 1, 2003 · Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 47 lets the parties’ own counsel examine prospective jurors, lets the court seat additional jurors beyond the standard twelve using either of two impaneling methods, and requires peremptory challenges to be submitted simultaneously in writing so no juror learns which side struck them.
Full Text of Rule 47
47.02 Additional Jurors. The court may direct prior to the start of jury selection that one or more jurors in addition to the regular jury of twelve persons be called and impaneled. The additional jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, shall have the same qualifications, shall be subject to the same examination and challenges, shall take the same oath, and shall have the same functions, powers, facilities, and privileges as the regular jurors. If one or more additional jurors are called, each party is entitled to one peremptory challenge for each such additional juror, up to the maximum provided by law. Such additional peremptory challenges may be used against any regular or additional juror. The trial court in its discretion may use either of the following methods to select and impanel additional jurors:
1 During the jury selection or the trial of the case, there shall be no distinction made by the court as to which jurors are additional jurors and which jurors are regular jurors. Before the jury retires to consider its verdict, the court shall select by lot the names of the requisite number of jurors to reduce the jury to a body of twelve or such other number as the law provides. A juror who is not selected to be a member of the final jury shall be discharged when that jury retires to consider its verdict.
2 Following the selection of the jury of twelve regular jurors or such other number as the law provides, the additional jurors shall be selected and impaneled as alternate jurors. Alternate jurors, in the order in which they are called, shall replace regular jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become unable or disqualified to perform their duties prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict.
47.03 Procedures for Exercising Peremptory Challenges. After prospective jurors have been passed for cause, counsel will submit simultaneously and in writing, to the trial judge, the name of any juror in the group of the first twelve (or more if additional jurors are seated) who has been seated that either counsel elects to challenge peremptorily. Upon each submission, each counsel shall submit either a challenge or a blank sheet of paper. Neither party shall make known the fact that the party has not challenged. Replacement jurors will be seated in the panel of twelve (or more) in the order of their selection. If necessary, additional replacement jurors will then be examined for cause and, after passed, counsel will again submit simultaneously, and in writing, to the trial judge, the name of any juror in the group of twelve (or more) that counsel elects to challenge peremptorily. This procedure will be followed until a full jury has been selected and accepted by counsel. The trial judge will keep a list of those challenged and, if the same juror is challenged by both parties, each will be charged with the challenge. The trial judge shall not disclose to any juror the identity of the party challenging the juror.
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments [2018].
The 2018 amendment corrects an outdated statutory cross-reference in the 2003 Advisory Commission Comment: as a result of 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 1159, the statutory limit on peremptory challenges now appears at Tenn. Code Ann. §22-3-104; and so the three cross references in the penultimate paragraph of the 2003 Advisory Commission Comment now should be to "Tenn. Code Ann. §22-3-104," instead of to "Tenn. Code Ann. §22-3-105."
Amendment History
- As amended by order filed January 31, 2003, effective July 1, 2003.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 47.01 gives the parties’ attorneys, not just the judge, the right to question prospective jurors — a right rooted in a Tennessee statute that predates the rule’s current form and that the rule was amended to match. Counsel also get a brief window at or near the start of jury selection to introduce themselves and describe the general nature of the case in plain, non-argumentative terms, giving jurors context before questioning begins. On motion or on its own initiative, the court can order that part of a juror’s questioning happen outside the hearing of the other prospective jurors, a tool most useful when a case touches sensitive subjects jurors may answer more candidly in private.
Rule 47.02 lets the court seat one or more additional jurors beyond the standard twelve before jury selection begins, drawn, qualified, and examined the same way as the regular jurors and entitled to an extra peremptory challenge per additional juror, usable against any juror. The court chooses between two ways to handle the extra jurors: treating every seated juror alike throughout the trial and randomly cutting the panel down to size by lot just before deliberations begin, with the unselected jurors discharged at that point; or designating the extras as alternates from the start, who step in only if a regular juror becomes unable or unqualified to serve before deliberations begin, and who are otherwise discharged once deliberations start. Because Tennessee’s jury right requires a twelve-person panel rather than the smaller juries some other systems allow, additional jurors serve a structural purpose here that shrinking a jury mid-trial cannot substitute for.
Rule 47.03 governs how peremptory challenges get exercised: after jurors are passed for cause, counsel for every side submit their challenges to the judge simultaneously and in writing, with each side turning in either a name or a blank sheet so no one can tell from the process alone who struck whom. If two sides strike the same juror, each is charged with using a challenge. The judge keeps track of who has been struck but never discloses to a juror who challenged them, and the process repeats as replacement jurors are examined until a full jury is seated and accepted by every side.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who gets to question prospective jurors — the judge or the lawyers?
The lawyers. Rule 47.01 requires the court to let the parties or their attorneys conduct the examination of prospective jurors, and it also lets counsel make brief, non-argumentative introductory remarks near the start of jury selection.
Can more than twelve jurors be seated for a civil trial?
Yes. Rule 47.02 lets the court seat one or more additional jurors before selection begins, using either of two methods — treating all jurors alike until a random cut before deliberations, or designating the extras as alternates from the outset.
Will I know which side struck me from the jury with a peremptory challenge?
No. Rule 47.03 requires peremptory challenges to be submitted simultaneously and in writing to the judge, and the judge never discloses to a juror which party exercised a challenge against them.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 47). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: jury selectionvoir direperemptory challengesadditional jurorsalternate jurors
Advisory Commission Comments [2003].
The new material in the second and third sentences of Rule 47.01 provides two new procedures designed to assist jurors in understanding the proceedings and in protecting their privacy while encouraging juror candor. The new language gives counsel the right to make brief, non-argumentative statements near the beginning of the jury selection process. These statements may be made before selection begins or when counsel is first permitted to ask questions of prospective jurors. During these remarks counsel should introduce themselves and briefly describe the nature of the case. This process should give jurors a better sense of the participants in the trial and the nature of the responsibility the jurors may be chosen to undertake. The new language also specifically authorizes courts to use individual voir dire of potential jurors when appropriate. It is likely this will occur primarily in cases where potential jurors are questioned about sensitive matters. By substantially reducing the audience present when the juror must answer such questions, jurors should be more candid and feel that their privacy is respected. This rule mirrors existing Criminal Procedure Rule 24(a). Amended Rule 47.02 permits the trial court to use one of two alternative methods for selecting and impaneling additional jurors in civil cases. The rule parallels the existing system set out in Criminal Procedure Rule 24(e) governing jury trials in criminal cases. In adopting the two alternative methods, Amended Rule 47.02 essentially formalizes current practice in civil cases, under which individual trial courts already use either of these methods. Rule 47.02(1), the first alternative method, eliminates the distinction between regular and alternate jurors. If the court decides to seat extra jurors in case a regular juror becomes unable to serve, the additional jurors are combined with the other jurors for all purposes during the trial. Thus, if a court decides to use twelve jurors plus two additional jurors, all fourteen jurors are considered to be the jurors during the entire trial. Under this alternative, before the jury retires to deliberate the court will randomly deselect the additional jurors, leaving the desired number of jurors, ordinarily twelve. The deselected jurors are then discharged when the remaining jurors retire to deliberate. Rule 47.02(2), the second alternative method, provides for the more traditional practice of selecting the regular jurors and then selecting additional jurors, who are designated as alternate jurors. Under this method, an alternate juror would replace a regular juror who becomes unable or disqualified to perform his or her duties; an alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror is discharged when the jury retires to consider its verdict. Rule 47.02, as amended, also modifies the use of peremptory challenges in the selection of additional jurors by reducing the number of peremptory challenges per additional juror from two to one. The amendment, however, specifically authorizes the practice of "backstriking" by which peremptory challenges, including those authorized for the additional juror(s), may be used against any juror. This procedure should provide lawyers with more flexibility in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Under prior law, the extra challenges could only be used against an alternate juror. This rule must be read in conjunction with Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-3-105, which places a limit on the total number of peremptory challenges in a civil case. Under this statute, each side in a civil case, irrespective of the number of parties on that side, is limited to a maximum of eight peremptory challenges. That maximum number is not changed by additional peremptory challenges for additional jurors. For example, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-3-105 a civil plaintiff is entitled to four peremptory challenges. If an additional juror is seated, that plaintiff is now entitled to five peremptory challenges (four under Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-3-105 and one for the additional juror). If there are two plaintiffs, under the statute each is entitled to four peremptory challenges. If the court seats additional jurors, no additional peremptory challenges are given to the two plaintiffs since the statutory maximum of eight peremptory challenges per side has been reached. The new procedure in Rule 47.03 adopts the procedure long used in Tennessee criminal cases and required by Criminal Procedure Rule 24(c). It provides a well-tried and widely adopted method of exercising peremptory challenges in a way that does not divulge which lawyer excluded the juror. Under this model, lawyers for all parties write their decision whether to exercise a peremptory challenge on a piece of paper, which is given to the judge. The judge then announces the result. No one should be able to detect which lawyer exercised the peremptory challenge. If more than one counsel excludes a particular juror, each counsel is charged with one peremptory challenge. Peremptory challenges may be used against any regular or additional juror, pursuant to Rule 47.02.