party exercises a peremptory challenge in Florida

2025Thus, our supreme court explained: “The only fair scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately, and orally so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made.” Id.

2025The trial court’s method complied with the “fair scheme” contemplated by the Florida Supreme Court in Ter Keurst whereby each party is allowed “to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately, and orally so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made.” 486 So. 2d at 549 (emphasis added).

2019See Trotter , 576 So.2d at 693 ("[The objectionable] juror must be an individual who actually sat on the jury and whom the [party] either challenged for cause or attempted to challenge peremptorily or otherwise objected to after his peremptory challenges had been exhausted."); Tedder v. Video Elecs., Inc. , 491 So.2d 533 , 535 (Fla. 1986) ("[T]he only fair scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately , and orally so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made." (emphasis ad

2019See Trotter , 576 So.2d at 693 ("[The objectionable] juror must be an individual who actually sat on the jury and whom the [party] either challenged for cause or attempted to challenge peremptorily or otherwise objected to after his peremptory challenges had been exhausted."); Tedder v. Video Elecs., Inc. , 491 So.2d 533 , 535 (Fla. 1986) ("[T]he only fair scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately , and orally so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made." (emphasis ad

2019See Trotter , 576 So.2d at 693 ("[The objectionable] juror must be an individual who actually sat on the jury and whom the [party] either challenged for cause or attempted to challenge peremptorily or otherwise objected to after his peremptory challenges had been exhausted."); Tedder v. Video Elecs., Inc. , 491 So.2d 533 , 535 (Fla. 1986) ("[T]he only fair scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately , and orally so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made." (emphasis ad

2019See Trotter , 576 So.2d at 693 ("[The objectionable] juror must be an individual who actually sat on the jury and whom the [party] either challenged for cause or attempted to challenge peremptorily or otherwise objected to after his peremptory challenges had been exhausted."); Tedder v. Video Elecs., Inc. , 491 So.2d 533 , 535 (Fla. 1986) ("[T]he only fair scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately , and orally so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made." (emphasis ad

2025Sys., Inc., 408 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“A party litigant, whether plaintiff or defendant, is entitled to consider the panel as a whole at any time that litigant has peremptory challenges remaining, and exercise those challenges at any time until the jury is sworn.”).