WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 933

Purpose and main aim

  • Introduces the Fair Trial Protection Act to reform how peremptory jury challenges are used in criminal cases.
  • Objective: prohibit peremptory challenges based on protected characteristics (race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry) and require a record-based, scrutinized process when challenges are challenged as discriminatory.
  • Replaces the existing framework in Revised Code section 2945.21 with new provisions and procedures.

Key provisions and changes

  • Peremptory challenges limits (unchanged general framework, but clarified by new act):
    • In cases with a single defendant:
    • Misdemeanor cases: each party may peremptorily challenge 3 jurors.
    • Felony cases (non-capital): each party may peremptorily challenge 4 jurors.
    • In cases with multiple defendants: each defendant has the same peremptory challenge count as if they were sole defendant.
    • In capital cases (single defendant): each party may peremptorily challenge 12 jurors.
    • In capital cases with multiple defendants: each defendant has the same peremptory count as if sole defendant.
    • In multi-defendant cases, the prosecutor may peremptorily challenge a number of jurors equal to the total number allowed to all defendants.
  • Consolidated cases: if indictments/informations/complaints are consolidated, they are treated as joined for purposes of peremptory challenges (i.e., counts aggregate as if joined in one proceeding).
  • Prohibition on discriminatory challenges:
    • A peremptory challenge may not be exercised to remove a prospective juror based on protected characteristics listed above.
  • Objection and record-keeping process:
    • If a party objects to a peremptory challenge on the basis of discrimination, the challenging party must state a clear, reasonably specific, and neutral explanation for the challenge on the record.
  • Judicial assessment (divisions D–E):
    • The court evaluates the challenged peremptory strike to determine:
    • It is more likely than not that the strike was for reasons unrelated to the protected class.
    • The party’s interest in excluding the juror is outweighed by the interest in an impartial trial with a representative cross-section of the community.
    • Consideration of circumstances includes patterns of challenges against the same protected class, whether similarly situated non-protected jurors were challenged, applicability of the stated reason to other jurors, case facts, demeanor/credibility of the challenging party, etc.
  • Remedies:
    • If a discriminatory peremptory challenge is found, the court shall deny the challenge and seat the juror; if the juror was excused, remedial actions may include mistrial in extreme cases.
  • Appeal standards:
    • Appeals concerning violations are subject to de novo review of legal conclusions by the appellate court, with factual findings reviewed only if clearly erroneous.
    • Appeals proceed under heightened scrutiny to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
  • Procedures:
    • Peremptory challenges must follow the procedures outlined in Criminal Rule 24.

Who is affected

  • Defendants and prosecutors in Ohio criminal cases, across misdemeanor, felony (non-capital), and capital cases.
  • Courts, judges, and trial teams handling jury selection.
  • Defendants in multi-defendant cases, where cumulative peremptory challenges now align with the combined total.
  • Participants in consolidated cases (treated as joined for peremptory purposes).

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The act establishes a new statutory framework for jury selection and discrimination objections; it repeals the current section 2945.21 and replaces it with the Fair Trial Protection Act.
  • The act emphasizes on-record objections and neutral explanations during jury selection, with enhanced appellate review standards if challenged.
  • It codifies the interaction with Criminal Rule 24 for peremptory challenge procedures.
  • Effective dates are not specified in the provided text; typical enactment would follow passage and signing, with implementation likely aligning to the next court term or specified transition language in the final bill.

Notes

  • The bill is titled the Fair Trial Protection Act and introduces a structured, evidence-based approach to evaluating alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges.
  • It heightens safeguards to ensure jury pools are drawn from a representative cross-section and that challenges based on protected characteristics are not used to improperly shape juries.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.