In Clarck Paul v. State, 4D2023-2680, (Fla. 4th DCA March 26, 2025), the defendant challenged his conviction for first degree murder on grounds that the trial court impermissibly used a random number generator to seat prospective jurors, which resulted in the parties not knowing who would be called to replace a stricken juror. The defense argued this procedure did not give them the opportunity to exercise peremptory challenges intelligently by hiding the identity of the prospective juror that would be called once a strike was made. To decide whether this procedure is permissible, the Fourth District examined the purpose of peremptory challenges under Florida law, which is “to enable each side to exclude those jurors it believes will be most partial toward the other side.” The court noted that implicit in the right of peremptory challenge is “the right to make an intelligent decision as to whether a juror should be excused.” Finding no Florida case addressing the procedure used by the trial court, the Fourth District turned to federal court precedent, which recognizes the use of the “jury box” system, which is similar to the system used by the trial court, as well as the “struck jury” system, in which the panel is seated in order, and thus the parties can use their peremptory challenges to determine not only who will not serve, but also who will serve on the jury. While recognizing that the “struck jury” system permits the parties to make the most effective use of peremptory challenges, the court nevertheless found the trial court’s “jury box” method did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to intelligently use his peremptory challenges, which are a right of rejection, not of selection. However, the court also certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, asking whether Florida law requires that a party exercising a peremptory challenge know the identity of the panel member who will be seated if the challenge is exercised. Trial practitioners, in particular, should follow this case closely, as it could have a substantial impact on jury selection strategy. View the opinion here.