Florida Traffic Court Rule 6.183
RULE 6.183. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
In every jury trial in which a defendant is charged with a
violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes, each party shall have
3 peremptory challenges, but the trial court, in the interest of
justice, in its discretion may permit additional challenges.
Committee Notes
1988 Adoption. This rule was initially drafted to allow 6 peremptory
challenges per side in all DUI trials on the basis that the penalties in a DUI
were normally more severe than most third-degree felonies, that the trial was
as complicated as any second-degree felony, and that it was also subject to
extreme jury prejudice due to “media blitz” publicity and the pressures from
citizen action groups, as well as the numbers of prospective jurors who were
nondrinkers or had religious reasons against drinking. The proposed rule met
with strong opposition from the committee as drafted, with an almost even split
vote. An amendment was proposed, which is the above rule as written, which
satisfied all members of the committee, as it was recognized that the outlined
problems existed, and the committee felt that a rule was needed to affirmatively
show that additional peremptories should be freely granted by the court when
the need arises.
In every jury trial in which a defendant is charged with a
violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes, each party shall have
3 peremptory challenges, but the trial court, in the interest of
justice, in its discretion may permit additional challenges.
Committee Notes
1988 Adoption. This rule was initially drafted to allow 6 peremptory
challenges per side in all DUI trials on the basis that the penalties in a DUI
were normally more severe than most third-degree felonies, that the trial was
as complicated as any second-degree felony, and that it was also subject to
extreme jury prejudice due to “media blitz” publicity and the pressures from
citizen action groups, as well as the numbers of prospective jurors who were
nondrinkers or had religious reasons against drinking. The proposed rule met
with strong opposition from the committee as drafted, with an almost even split
vote. An amendment was proposed, which is the above rule as written, which
satisfied all members of the committee, as it was recognized that the outlined
problems existed, and the committee felt that a rule was needed to affirmatively
show that additional peremptories should be freely granted by the court when
the need arises.