Section 33.011(b) has been amended to require alternate jurors to stick around until the regular jury reaches a verdict on guilt and, if applicable, punishment. In addition, the statute now allows the court to use an alternate juror to replace a regular juror "on agreement of the parties to have good cause for [a regular juror] not performing their duties." Does anyone have any thoughts on how this is going to work in practice and what "good cause" might mean in regard to the replacement of the regular jurors? Can we now be like California in the Scott Peterson trial and just keep replacing jurors until we find 12 who can reach a verdict? Are the alternates now going to have to be sequestered until the regular jury reaches a verdict? Will they get to sit in the jury room during the regular jury's deliberations? If an alternate replaces a regular juror after deliberations have begun, do the deliberations have to start over? This seems to me to be a very vague statute and has the potential to foster a lot of appellate litigation before it's cleared up.

There's been some discussion about this in another thread.

The basic consensus: Yes, it's a mess!