Unless stipulated by the parties, no jury shall be seated with less than eight members. Where personal emergency or disqualification causes a juror to be excused after the jury is seated, no verdict may be taken from a jury reduced to fewer than seven members, unless stipulated by the parties.
Me. R. Civ. P. 48
Advisory Committee’s Notes May 1, 2000
Subdivision (a) is amended to make reference to jurors rather than juries.
Advisory Notes – July 2003
Rule 48(b) is amended to recognize the amendment to 14 M.R.S.A. §1204 adopted by PL 2003, ch. 299, § 1. The September 15, 2003, effective date is near the effective date of the statutory change. The change in the statute authorizes a civil jury to be seated with either eight or nine members. The principal purpose of the amendment is to allow ninth jurors, who have been selected as alternates but not allowed to deliberate, to now join the deliberations as a regular juror. Section 1204, as revised, also authorizes a verdict to be returned by a jury of seven, eight or nine members. However, a seven-member jury could only occur if a juror was excused for some compelling reason or disqualified after a jury of eight or nine had been seated.
The Rules and the related law indicating that at least three-quarters of the deliberating jurors must join in any jury verdict is not changed. Thus, with the change in the numbers of available jurors, jury verdicts would be returnable by votes of seven out of nine jurors, six out of eight jurors, or six out of seven jurors. The three-quarters concurrence requirement prevents a five to two vote in the unusual case where a jury may be reduced to seven members reporting a verdict.
The Legislation amending section 1204 was entitled: “An Act To Include Alternates as Regular Jurors.” Accordingly, it does not appear that it contemplates any change in the current widespread practice of selecting eight civil jurors and at least one alternate. The only difference is that if, at the conclusion of the case, nine jurors remain including the juror considered the alternate, all jurors would deliberate including the alternate. Because this change is designed to achieve change in practice regarding jury deliberation, but not regarding jury selection, no changes are recommended in M.R. Civ. P. 47(c) relating to peremptory challenges or M.R. Civ. P. 47(d) relating to alternate jurors. As presently, where more than eight jurors are to be selected, additional peremptory challenges as indicated by M.R. Civ. P. 47(d) should be allowed. Further, the limitations in M.R. Civ. P. 47(d) that no more than three jurors be selected as alternates continues to contemplate that no more than a total of eleven jurors be seated to consider a civil case. If, at the conclusion of any case, more than nine jurors remain, the remaining tenth or eleventh jurors would have to be excused. The change in the law and the rule contemplates that only the first alternate–the ninth juror, be eligible to participate in jury deliberations and join in reporting the verdict.
Advisory Notes – 2004
In 2004, the Maine Legislature amended 14 M.R.S.A. §§1204(1) and 1354 to state that verdicts in civil cases may be returned by a vote of two-thirds of the jurors deliberating in the jury panel. This change follows amendments which occurred in 2003, allowing civil jury deliberations to occur with a jury of seven, eight, or nine members. Those changes are discussed in the 2003 Advisory Notes. As a result of this change to a two-thirds vote requirement, jury verdicts may be reported by a vote of six out of nine jurors, six out of eight jurors or five out of seven jurors.