Conn. Practice Book § 5-12

(a) Policy and Purpose. The purpose of this

rule is to eliminate the unfair exclusion of potential

jurors based upon race or ethnicity.

(b) Objection. A party may object to the use

of a peremptory challenge to raise a claim of

improper bias. The court may also raise this objection on its own. The objection shall be made by

simple citation to this rule, and any further discussion shall be conducted outside the presence of

the prospective juror.

(c) Response. Upon objection to the exercise

of a peremptory challenge pursuant to this rule,

the party exercising the peremptory challenge

shall articulate the reason that the peremptory

challenge has been exercised.

(d) Determination. The court shall then evaluate from the perspective of an objective observer,

as defined in subsection (e) herein, the reason

given to justify the peremptory challenge in light

of the totality of the circumstances. If the court

determines that the use of the challenge against

the prospective juror, as reasonably viewed by an

objective observer, legitimately raises the appearance that the prospective juror’s race or ethnicity

was a factor in the challenge, then the challenge

shall be disallowed and the prospective juror shall

be seated. If the court determines that the use of

the challenge does not raise such an appearance,

then the challenge shall be permitted and the prospective juror shall be excused. The court need

not find purposeful discrimination to disallow the

peremptory challenge. The court must explain its

ruling on the record. A party whose peremptory

challenge has been disallowed pursuant to this

rule shall not be prohibited from attempting to

challenge peremptorily the prospective juror for

any other reason or from conducting further voir

dire of the prospective juror.

(e) Nature of Observer. For the purpose of

this rule, an objective observer: (1) is aware that

purposeful discrimination, and implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, have historically

resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors

on the basis of their race, or ethnicity; and (2) is

deemed to be aware of and to have given due

consideration to the circumstances set forth in

subsection (f) herein.

(f) Circumstances considered. In making its

determination, the circumstances the court should

consider include, but are not limited to, the fol -

lowing:

(1) the number and types of questions posed

to the prospective juror including consideration

of whether the party exercising the peremptory

challenge failed to question the prospective juror

about the alleged concern or the questions asked

about it;

(2) whether the party exercising the peremptory

challenge asked significantly more questions or

different questions of the prospective juror, unrelated to his testimony, than were asked of other

prospective jurors;

(3) whether other prospective jurors provided

similar answers but were not the subject of a

peremptory challenge by that party;

(4) whether a reason might be disproportionately associated with a race or ethnicity;

(5) if the party has used peremptory challenges

disproportionately against a given race or ethnicity

in the present case, or has been found by a court

to have done so in a previous case;

(6) whether issues concerning race or ethnicity

play a part in the facts of the case to be tried;

(7) whether the reason given by the party exercising the peremptory challenge was contrary to

or unsupported by the record.

(g) Reasons Presumptively Invalid. Because

historically the following reasons for peremptory

challenges have been associated with improper

discrimination in jury selection in Connecticut or

may be influenced by implicit or explicit bias, the

following are presumptively invalid reasons for a

peremptory challenge:

(1) having prior contact with law enforcement

officers;

(2) expressing a distrust of law enforcement or

a belief that law enforcement officers engage in

racial profiling;

(3) having a close relationship with people who

have been stopped, arrested, or convicted of a

crime;

(4) living in a high crime neighborhood;

(5) having a child outside of marriage;

(6) receiving state benefits;

(7) not being a native English speaker; and

(8) having been a victim of a crime.

The presumptive invalidity of any such reason

may be overcome as to the use of a peremptory

challenge on a prospective juror if the party exercising the challenge demonstrates to the court’s

satisfaction that the reason, viewed reasonably

and objectively, is unrelated to the prospective

juror’s race or ethnicity and, while not seen by the

court as sufficient to warrant excusal for cause,

legitimately bears on the prospective juror’s ability

to be fair and impartial in light of particular facts

and circumstances at issue in the case.

(h) Reliance on Conduct. The following reasons for peremptory challenges also have historically been associated with improper discrimination

in jury selection: allegations that the prospective

juror was inattentive, failing to make eye contact

or exhibited a problematic attitude, body language, or demeanor. If any party intends to offer

one of these reasons or a similar reason as a

justification for a peremptory challenge, that party

must provide reasonable notice to the court and

the other parties so the behavior can be verified

and addressed in a timely manner. A party who

intends to exercise a peremptory challenge for

reasons relating to those listed above in this subsection shall, as soon as practicable, notify the

court and the other party in order to determine

whether such conduct was observed by the court

or that party. If the alleged conduct is not corroborated by observations of the court or the objecting

party, then a presumption of invalidity shall apply

but may be overcome as set forth in subsection

(g).

(i) Review Process. The chief justice shall

appoint an individual or individuals to monitor

issues relating to this rule.