In Nevada peremptory challenges let each side strike a limited number of potential jurors without giving a reason. Civil cases and most criminal cases give each side four. The number rises to eight per side when the criminal charge carries a possible death sentence or life in prison. Extra challenges are added when alternate jurors will be seated, and multi-party civil sides can qualify for more. The one firm limit is that a strike cannot be based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
Criminal Case Counts
The count turns entirely on the potential sentence. If the charge carries a possible death sentence or life in prison, each side gets eight peremptory challenges. For every other criminal offense, each side gets four.1Nevada Legislature. Nevada Code 175.051 – Number of Peremptory Challenges There is no separate, lower tier for misdemeanors. A DUI defendant gets the same four peremptory challenges as someone facing a non-capital felony.
Co-defendants tried together do not each get their own allotment. They share one set of challenges for their side.2Nevada Legislature. Nevada Code 175.041 – Joint Trial of Several Defendants When defendants have competing interests, every strike one wants to use shrinks the pool left for the others.
Civil Case Counts
Each side in a civil trial receives four peremptory challenges. That number holds regardless of the amount in controversy or the complexity of the dispute.3Nevada Legislature. Nevada Code 16.040 – Challenges to Jurors; Peremptory Challenges
When several plaintiffs or several defendants sit on the same side and their interests diverge, the court can grant that side up to four additional peremptory challenges. If the parties cannot agree on how to split those extra strikes, the judge allocates them.3Nevada Legislature. Nevada Code 16.040 – Challenges to Jurors; Peremptory Challenges A multi-party side can therefore end up with as many as eight peremptory challenges, double the normal number.
Extra Challenges for Alternate Jurors
Alternates sit through the trial and step in if a regular juror cannot continue. Because they go through their own selection, both sides receive additional peremptory challenges reserved for alternates. The alternate challenges can only be used on alternate candidates, and the regular challenges cannot be used on alternates.
In criminal cases, each side gets one additional challenge when one or two alternates will be seated, two extra for three or four alternates, and three extra for five or six alternates.4Nevada Legislature. Nevada Revised Statutes 175.061 – Alternate Jurors Civil cases use a simpler formula: one additional challenge for every two alternates to be seated.5Nevada Courts. NRCP 47 – Selecting Jurors
Peremptory Challenges vs. Challenges for Cause
Attorneys have two ways to remove a potential juror, and the count above only governs one of them. A challenge for cause requires a specific, articulated reason: the juror knows a party, has a financial stake in the outcome, says they cannot be impartial, or has some other concrete disqualifying factor. The judge decides whether that reason is sufficient. There is no cap on how many for-cause challenges either side can raise, but each one has to clear the judge.
A peremptory challenge works the other way. No reason is required, but the number is strictly limited to the counts set out above. An attorney can strike a juror on a hunch about body language, an evasive answer, or any instinct about how that person might weigh the evidence. The discretion is wide; the volume is small.
Limits on Why a Juror Can Be Struck
“No reason required” has one firm exception. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that the Equal Protection Clause forbids striking jurors solely because of their race or on the assumption that jurors of a particular race cannot be impartial.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 J.E.B. v. Alabama extended the same protection to gender.7Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. 511 U.S. 127
When one side believes the other is striking jurors on a prohibited basis, the objection follows three steps. The objecting party must first show enough to suggest the strike was motivated by race or gender, often by pointing to a pattern. If that showing is sufficient, the striking attorney must offer a neutral explanation. The judge then decides whether that explanation is genuine or a cover for discrimination.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79
Nevada courts apply this framework. In Libby v. State, 115 Nev. 45 (1999), the Nevada Supreme Court confirmed that the same three-step inquiry governs gender-based objections in Nevada criminal trials. In Ford v. State, 122 Nev. 398 (2006), the court reinforced that Batson challenges must be taken seriously and the three-step inquiry followed.
The court sharpened the third step in Williams v. State, 134 Nev. 687 (2018). A trial judge must give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to argue that the prosecutor’s supposedly neutral explanation is pretextual. When a prosecutor offers two reasons for a strike and one looks implausible, the trial court cannot simply accept the explanation at face value; it has to actually evaluate credibility. The court also held that a Batson objection should be sustained if the strike was “more likely than not” improperly motivated.8Justia. Williams v. State – 2018 – Supreme Court of Nevada Decisions
What Happens if a Strike Is Found Discriminatory
When a judge sustains a Batson objection, the court has several options. The most common remedy is to deny the peremptory challenge and reseat the juror. Where multiple strikes appear tainted, the court can dismiss the entire panel and restart selection. A mistrial is the most drastic option, reserved for cases where the discrimination is so pervasive that no lesser remedy can cure it.
The stakes carry past the trial. A successful Batson challenge on appeal can reverse a conviction and send the case back for retrial. That is what happened in Williams, where the Nevada Supreme Court reversed because the trial court failed to properly evaluate whether the prosecution’s reasons for striking a juror were pretextual.8Justia. Williams v. State – 2018 – Supreme Court of Nevada Decisions A single questionable strike during jury selection can undo years of litigation.