Section 972.03. 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) .

1983 a. 226 ; 1995 a. 427 ; Sup. Ct. Order No. 96-08 , 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997). Judicial 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] Judicial 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.] A 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 .

Note

For cases 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. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1