Opinion ID: 349452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges for Alternates

Text: 18 Wesley complains that he did not have the additional peremptory challenges for alternates required under Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c). 4 At a pretrial conference, the court announced that it was going to select a jury of twelve plus four alternates, with all challenges to be exercised across the board; Judge Duffy said he would put sixteen people in the box, with both sides allowed to challenge anybody you want, alternate or regular juror. He then said, going beyond the requirements of Rule 24(c): The defense, in view of the fact that we do have four alternates, will be given four extra challenges. No one objected at the time to the court's procedure, and Wesley has not shown that he was prejudiced by it. 5 Hence the trial court's procedure must be upheld. We would point out, however, that the better practice would have been to permit separate challenges for alternates, as Rule 24(c) on its face appears to require, thereby preventing use of the extra challenges for alternates as challenges to members of the regular panel.