Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431

Trial Jury

sha256 1d0f04f4e802c7e95fbcfdc41104b756… · retrieved 7/11/2026, 11:08:27 AM · The Florida Bar consolidated ed. eff. 04-01-2026 · verified 7/11/2026 by founder-directive-2026-07-11

RULE 1.431. 	TRIAL JURY
(a) 	Questionnaire.
(1) 	The circuit court may direct the authority charged
by law with the selection of prospective jurors to furnish each
prospective juror with a questionnaire in the form approved by the
supreme court from time to time to assist the authority in selecting
prospective jurors. The questionnaire must be used after the names
of jurors have been selected as provided by law but before
certification and the placing of the names of prospective jurors in
the jury box. The questionnaire must be used to determine those
who are not qualified to serve as jurors under any statutory ground
of disqualification.
(2) 	To assist in voir dire examination at trial, any court
may direct the clerk to furnish prospective jurors selected for
service with a questionnaire in the form approved by the supreme
court from time to time. The prospective jurors must be asked to

complete and return the forms. Completed forms may be inspected
in the clerk’s office and copies must be available in court during the
voir dire examination for use by parties and the court.
(b) 	Examination by Parties. The parties have the right to
examine jurors orally on their voir dire. The order in which the
parties may examine each juror must be determined by the court.
The court may ask such questions of the jurors as it deems
necessary, but the right of the parties to conduct a reasonable
examination of each juror orally must be preserved.
(c) 	Challenge for Cause.
(1) 	On motion of any party, the court must examine
any prospective juror on oath to determine whether that person is
related, within the third degree, to (i) any party, (ii) the attorney of
any party, or (iii) any other person or entity against whom liability
or blame is alleged in the pleadings, or is related to any person
alleged to have been wronged or injured by the commission of the
wrong for the trial of which the juror is called, or has any interest in
the action, or has formed or expressed any opinion, or is sensible of
any bias or prejudice concerning it, or is an employee or has been
an employee of any party or any other person or entity against
whom liability or blame is alleged in the pleadings, within 30 days
before the trial. A party objecting to the juror may introduce any
other competent evidence to support the objection. If it appears that
the juror does not stand indifferent to the action or any of the
foregoing grounds of objection exists or that the juror is otherwise
incompetent, another must be called in that juror’s place.
(2) 	The fact that any person selected for jury duty from
bystanders or the body of the county and not from a jury list
lawfully selected has served as a juror in the court in which that
person is called at any other time within 1 year is a ground of
challenge for cause.
(3) 	When the nature of any civil action requires a
knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic, or any of them, to
enable a juror to understand the evidence to be offered, the fact

that any prospective juror does not possess the qualifications is a
ground of challenge for cause.
(d) 	Peremptory Challenges. Each party is entitled to 3
peremptory challenges of jurors, but when the number of parties on
opposite sides is unequal, the opposing parties are entitled to the
same aggregate number of peremptory challenges to be determined
on the basis of 3 peremptory challenges to each party on the side
with the greater number of parties. The additional peremptory
challenges accruing to multiple parties on the opposing side must
be divided equally among them. Any additional peremptory
challenges not capable of equal division must be exercised
separately or jointly as determined by the court.
(e) 	Exercise of Challenges. All challenges must be
addressed to the court outside the hearing of the jury in a manner
selected by the court so that the jury panel is not aware of the
nature of the challenge, the party making the challenge, or the
basis of the court’s ruling on the challenge, if for cause.
(f) 	Swearing of Jurors. No one shall be sworn as a juror
until the jury has been accepted by the parties or until all
challenges have been exhausted.
(g) 	Alternate Jurors.
(1) 	The court may direct that 1 or more jurors be
impaneled to sit as alternate jurors in addition to the regular panel.
Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called must replace
jurors who have become unable or disqualified to perform their
duties before the jury retires to consider its verdict. Alternate jurors
must be drawn in the same manner, have the same qualifications,
be subject to the same examination, take the same oath, and have
the same functions, powers, facilities, and privileges as principal
jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror
must be discharged when the jury retires to consider the verdict.
(2) 	If alternate jurors are called, each party is entitled
to one peremptory challenge in the selection of the alternate juror or
jurors, but when the number of parties on opposite sides is

unequal, the opposing parties are entitled to the same aggregate
number of peremptory challenges to be determined on the basis of 1
peremptory challenge to each party on the side with the greater
number of parties. The additional peremptory challenges allowed
pursuant to this subdivision may be used only against the alternate
jurors. The peremptory challenges allowed pursuant to subdivision
(d) of this rule must not be used against the alternate jurors.
(h) 	Interview of a Juror. A party who believes that grounds
for legal challenge to a verdict exist may move for an order
permitting an interview of a juror or jurors to determine whether
the verdict is subject to the challenge. The motion must be served
within 15 days after rendition of the verdict unless good cause is
shown for the failure to make the motion within that time. The
motion must state the name and address of each juror to be
interviewed and the grounds for challenge that the party believes
may exist. After notice and hearing, the trial judge must enter an
order denying the motion or permitting the interview. If the
interview is permitted, the court may prescribe the place, manner,
conditions, and scope of the interview.
(i) 	Communication with the Jury. This rule governs all
communication between the judge or courtroom personnel and
jurors.
(1) 	Communication to be on the Record. The court must
notify the parties of any communication from the jury pertaining to
the action as promptly as practicable and in any event before
responding to the communication. Except as set forth below, all
communications between the court or courtroom personnel and the
jury must be on the record in open court or must be in writing and
filed in the action. The court or courtroom personnel must note on
any written communication to or from the jury the date and time it
was delivered.
(2) 	Exception for Certain Routine Communication. The
court must, by pretrial order or by statement on the record with
opportunity for objection, set forth the scope of routine ex parte
communication to be permitted and the limits imposed by the court
with regard to such communication.

(A) 	Routine ex parte communication between the
bailiff or other courtroom personnel and the jurors, limited to juror
comfort and safety, may occur off the record.
(B) 	In no event shall ex parte communication
between courtroom personnel and jurors extend to matters that
may affect the outcome of the trial, including statements containing
any fact or opinion concerning a party, attorney, or procedural
matter or relating to any legal issue or lawsuit.
(3) 	Instructions to Jury. During voir dire, the court must
instruct the jurors and courtroom personnel regarding the
limitations on communication between the court or courtroom
personnel and jurors. On empanelling the jury, the court must
instruct the jurors that their questions are to be submitted in
writing to the court, which will review them with the parties and
counsel before responding.
(4) 	Notification of Jury Communication. Courtroom
personnel must immediately notify the court of any communication
to or from a juror or among jurors in contravention of the court’s
orders or instructions, including all communication contrary to the
requirements of this rule.
Committee Notes
1971 Adoption. Subdivision (a) is new. It is intended to
replace section 40.101, Florida Statutes, declared unconstitutional
in Smith v. Portante, 212 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1968), after supplying the
deficiencies in the statute. It is intended to simplify the task of
selecting prospective jurors, both for the venire and for the panel for
trial in a particular action. The forms referred to in subdivision (a)
are forms 1.983 and 1.984. Subdivisions (b)–(e) are sections 53.031,
53.021, 53.011, and 53.051, Florida Statutes, without substantial
change.
1976 Amendment. Subdivision (e) has been added to
establish a procedure for challenging jurors without members of the
panel knowing the source of the challenge, to avoid prejudice.

Subdivision (f) is a renumbering of the previously enacted rule
regarding alternate jurors.
Subdivision (g) has been added to establish a procedure for
interviewing jurors. See also Canons of Professional Responsibility
DR 7 108.
1988 Amendment. Subdivision (f) has been added to ensure
the right to “back-strike” prospective jurors until the entire panel
has been accepted in civil cases. This right to back-strike until the
jurors have been sworn has been long recognized in Florida. Florida
Rock Industries, Inc. v. United Building Systems, Inc., 408 So. 2d
630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, in the recent case of Valdes v.
State, 443 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the court held that it
was not error for a court to swear jurors one at a time as they were
accepted and thereby prevent retrospective peremptory challenges.
The purpose of this subdivision is to prevent the use of individual
swearing of jurors in civil cases. Former subdivisions (f) and (g) have
been redesignated as (g) and (h) respectively.
1992 Amendment. Subdivision (g)(2) is amended to minimize
the inequity in numbers of peremptory challenges allowed in
selecting alternate jurors in actions with multiple parties.
2005 Amendment. Subdivision (c)(1) is amended to ensure
that prospective jurors may be challenged for cause based on bias
in favor of or against nonparties against whom liability or blame
may be alleged in accordance with the decisions in Fabre v. Marin,
623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), or Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services,
Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1996).
2013 Amendment. Subdivision (i) governs the responsibility
of the court for ensuring that parties and their counsel are aware of
all contact with the jury that could affect the outcome of the case.
Trial judges may have differing views on what constitutes harmless
or routine ex parte communication with jurors. Reasonable
variations are therefore permitted, provided the judge adequately
advises counsel, before the trial begins, of the specific
circumstances under which the court has determined that jury
communications will not be reported to the parties. The rule does

not prevent the bailiff or other courtroom personnel from discussing
such routine matters as juror parking, location of break areas, how
and when to assemble for duty, dress, and which items of a juror’s
personal property may be brought into the courthouse or jury room.
However, for example, questions or remarks from a juror about
such matters as the length of a witness’s testimony, when court will
adjourn on a given day, or how long the trial may take to complete
should be reported to the judge, as these matters may be of interest
to the parties. Any doubt as to whether a communication may or
may not be of interest to the parties should be resolved in favor of
promptly informing the court, the parties, and counsel, even if it is
after the fact. This will best ensure that the parties have the
opportunity to object to any improper communication and give the
court an opportunity to cure any prejudice, if an objection is made.

Verbatim from the official publication; the only normalization is removal of the publisher's page headers. Verify against the official source for filing-critical use — court publications change without notice.