Conn. Practice Book § 5-12 (2026)

Sec. 5-12 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, unre- lated 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 disproportion- ately 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 exer- cising 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; 182 (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 exer- cising 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 rea- sons for peremptory challenges also have histori- cally 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 lan- guage, 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 sub- section 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 corrobo- rated 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. (Adopted June 10, 2022, to take effect Jan. 1, 2023.)

© Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut SUPERIOR COURT—GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 6-3 CHAPTER 6 JUDGMENTS Sec. Sec. 6-1. Statement of Decision; When Required 6-2. Judgment Files; Captions and Contents 6-3. —Preparation; When; By Whom; Filing For previous Histories and Commentaries see the editions of the Practice Book corresponding to the years of the previous amendments.