Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 972.03 (2026)

Peremptory challenges

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

972.03972.03 Peremptory challenges. Each side is entitled to only 4 peremptory challenges except as otherwise provided in this section. When the crime charged is punishable by life imprisonment, the state is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges. If there is more than one defendant, the court shall divide the challenges as equally as practicable among them; and if their defenses are adverse and the court is satisfied that the protection of their rights so requires, the court may allow the defendants additional challenges. If the crime is punishable by life imprisonment, the total peremptory challenges allowed the defense shall not exceed 12 if there are only 2 defendants and 18 if there are more than 2 defendants; in other felony cases 6 challenges if there are only 2 defendants and 9 challenges if there are more than 2. In misdemeanor cases, the state is entitled to 3 peremptory challenges and the defendant is entitled to 3 peremptory challenges, except that if there are 2 defendants, the court shall allow the defense 4 peremptory challenges, and if there are more than 2 defendants, the court shall allow the defense 6 peremptory challenges. Each side shall be allowed one additional peremptory challenge if additional jurors are to be selected under s. 972.04 (1).

972.03 HistoryHistory: 1983 a. 226; 1995 a. 427; Sup. Ct. Order No. 96-08, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997).

972.03 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1983: This section is amended by allowing one additional peremptory challenge when additional jurors are to be impaneled. This approximates the right of each side under prior s. 972.05 to one additional peremptory challenge for each alternate juror. Since abolition of the concept of “alternate” jurors permits the additional peremptory challenge to be made to any member of the panel, only one additional challenge is permitted. [Bill 320-S]

972.03 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1996: This proposal changes “impaneled” to “selected” whenever a statute refers to choosing jurors or prospective jurors, for statutory uniformity. [Re Order effective 7-1-97.]

972.03 AnnotationA defendant is not entitled to a new trial when both the prosecution and defense are given an equal number of peremptory strikes, even if the number is less than provided for by statute. State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999), 98-0273.

972.03 NoteNOTE: For notes relating to discriminatory and otherwise improper use of peremptory strikes, see the notes to article I, section 7, of the Wisconsin Constitution under the heading Jury Trial and Juror Qualifications.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases, 1977–2017 · leading case: State v. Lindell, 2001 WI 108 (Wis. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Lindell, 2001 WI 108 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 20× “03 (1967); Wis. Stat. § 972.03 (1999-2000). *723 ś 66.”

State v. Ramos, 564 N.W.2d 328 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 22× “Therefore, we find that the failure to dismiss the challenged juror for cause was an erroneous exercise of discretion by the trial court.”

State v. Erickson, 596 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 6× “Wis. Stat. § 972.03 . Further, because the court included a thirteenth juror the State and Erickson should have each been granted an additional strike.”

State v. Ferron, 579 N.W.2d 654 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 10× “Accordingly, we hold that Ferron was deprived of his statutorily defined right to due process of law when he was compelled to use one of his peremptory challenges, as provided by Wis. Stat. § 972.03 (1993-94), [1] to correct the circuit court's error.”

State v. Jeffrey P. Lepsch, 2017 WI 27 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 4× “See Wis. Stat. § 972.03 (2013- 14). Nevertheless, we conclude, again, that even if Lepsch's attorneys performed deficiently in not raising the appropriate objections and challenges, Lepsch was not prejudiced by the performance.”

State v. Louis, 457 N.W.2d 484 (Wis. 1990). · cites it 6× “Defendant asserts that as a result he was deprived of two of his four statutorily-granted peremptory challenges, see sec. 972.03, Stats. 1985-86, [2] because he was "forced" to use those challenges to strike the police officers from the petit jury.”

State v. Mendoza, 596 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 6× “13 We note that, under Wis. Stat. §972.03 , individual defendants are not treated the same as the State when there are multiple defendants.”

Oswald v. Bertrand, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (E.D. Wis. 2003). · cites it 4× “” Thus, while defendants in all jurisdictions have a right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment, Wisconsin defendants have a specific statutory entitlement to have trial courts remove biased jurors.”

State v. Sarinske, 280 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1979). · cites it 2× “Section 972.03, Stats., gives the accused six peremptory challenges when the crime charged is punishable by life imprisonment.”

State v. Grady, 286 N.W.2d 607 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Section 972.03, Stats, provides that in a criminal jury trial, both the prosecution and the defense are entitled to four peremptory strikes.”

State v. Mendoza, 584 N.W.2d 174 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “First, the supreme court held that where additional jurors were impaneled and the crime charged was punishable by life imprisonment, § 972.03, Stats., gave the defendant a statutorily created right to seven peremptory challenges.”

Theodore W. Oswald v. Daniel Bertrand, 374 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2004). “Since under Wisconsin law each side would have seven peremptory challenges (the usual number for crimes punishable by life in prison is six, but since the judge decided to seat three alternates he gave each side one more peremptory challenge, Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 972.03 , .04(1)),…”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.