A New Hampshire Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges allows attorneys in a trial to request additional opportunities to exclude potential jurors without providing a specific reason. Peremptory challenges are used to ensure an impartial jury is selected, as the attorneys can dismiss potential jurors they believe may be biased or unsuitable for the case. In New Hampshire, the default peremptory challenge limit is set at three for each side in criminal cases and six for each side in civil cases. However, there are situations where attorneys may seek additional peremptory challenges to ensure a fair and unbiased jury selection process. There are two types of New Hampshire Motions for Additional Peremptory Challenges: 1. General Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges: This type of motion is made by one or both parties in a trial to request an increase in the number of peremptory challenges beyond the default limit. The motion is typically supported by arguments asserting the need for a larger pool of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial. The court will then consider the motion, weighing the potential impacts on the trial and the overall fairness of the process before granting or denying the request. 2. Individual Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges: This type of motion is filed by an attorney requesting additional peremptory challenges for specific jurors. The attorney must provide valid reasons to support the need for an extra challenge per potential juror. These reasons may include concerns about potential bias, prejudice, or previous experiences that could affect their ability to be impartial. The court then evaluates the motion and determines whether to grant or deny the additional peremptory challenges for the specified jurors. Overall, New Hampshire Motions for Additional Peremptory Challenges aim to ensure that the jury selection process is fair and impartial. By allowing attorneys the opportunity to exclude potential jurors without providing a specific reason, it helps protect the rights of both the prosecution and the defense. The court carefully considers such motions to strike a balance between the need for a diverse jury pool and concerns about potential bias or prejudice.