Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 12 Chapter 81
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1941 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 002 : JURY TRIALS

(Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 1941)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1962–2007 · leading case: State v. Gary Lee Schaefer Herald Ass'n, 599 A.2d 337 (Vt. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gary Lee Schaefer Herald Ass'n, 599 A.2d 337 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 2× “[4] In view of our disposition, we do not need to address whether the trial court can award defendant more peremptory challenges than the six provided in 12 V.S.A. § 1941 and V.R.Cr.P. 24(c)(3) in order to ensure a fair jury is impanelled.”
State v. Martin, 2007 VT 96 (Vt. 2007). “Defendant argues that the court's procedure denied him the voir dire necessary to exercise his statutory peremptory challenges under 12 V.S.A. § 1941 and, accordingly, denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
Lattrell v. Swain, 239 A.2d 195 (Vt. 1968). “The plaintiff at that time had exhausted only four of the six peremptory challenges granted him by 12 V.S.A. §1941. The plaintiff claims all three of the jurors in question were disqualified by bias or prejudice.”
United States Ex Rel. Brown v. Smith, 200 F. Supp. 885 (D. Vt. 1962). “Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 1941 (1959). 72 .”
State v. Truman, 204 A.2d 93 (Vt. 1964). “The motion for a change of venue was not renewed after the jury was impaneled.”
Milo J. v. State, 423 A.2d 845 (Vt. 1980). “The plaintiffs claim that their right to exercise the six peremptory challenges allowed by 12 V.S.A. § 1941 was denied them by the trial court.”
Winter v. Unaitis, 189 A.2d 547 (Vt. 1963). “Objections were also made by the plaintiffs and the defendants to the ruling of the court limiting the plaintiffs to six peremptory challenges, and the defendants twelve, under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. §1941. While these questions were briefed, the motion of the defendants…”
In re Harris, 671 A.2d 1278 (Vt. 1995). “A defendant’s right to be present during jury von- dire facilitates his statutory right, under 12 VS.A. § 1941, to exercise peremptory challenges.”
State v. Martin, 944 A.2d 867 (Vt. 2007). “Defendant argues that the court’s procedure denied him the voir dire necessary to exercise his statutory peremptory challenges under 12 V.S.A. § 1941 and, accordingly, denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.