Peremptory challenge - Revision history

Quidam65 at 23:41, February 25, 2026

2026-02-25T23:41:50Z

Quidam65: /* Discrimination in peremptory challenges */

2026-02-25T23:41:21Z

Discrimination in peremptory challenges

DavidB4-bot: /* Discrimination in peremptory challenges */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T17:24:15Z

Discrimination in peremptory challenges: clean up & uniformity

DamianJohn at 22:46, November 23, 2012

2012-11-23T22:46:26Z

DamianJohn at 10:37, November 23, 2012

2012-11-23T10:37:28Z

DamianJohn at 08:23, November 23, 2012

2012-11-23T08:23:47Z

DanAP at 07:25, November 23, 2012

2012-11-23T07:25:42Z

EdBot: Category:Legal Terms

2008-04-23T21:02:46Z

Category:Legal Terms

NathanG: bold

2008-03-11T22:05:45Z

bold

Aschlafly: und

2007-10-27T18:26:25Z

und

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Where a party claims that the other has discriminated in its peremptory challenges, once they have established an [[Evidentiary burden]] by means of a trend in challenges, the other side must show some non-discriminatory or "neutral" cause, or the juror will not be excused.
-==<references/>==
+==References==
 [[Category:Legal Terms]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Discrimination in peremptory challenges==
-Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they can not be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group.  Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].   The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to unduly influence the jury decision process.  The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>  The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
+Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they cannot be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group.  Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].   The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to unduly influence the jury decision process.  The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>  The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
-Where a party claims that the other has discriminated in its peremptory challenges, once they have established an [[Evidentiary burden]] by means of a trend in challenges, the other side must show some non discriminatory or "neutral" cause or the juror will not be excused.
+Where a party claims that the other has discriminated in its peremptory challenges, once they have established an [[Evidentiary burden]] by means of a trend in challenges, the other side must show some non-discriminatory or "neutral" cause, or the juror will not be excused.
- ==<references/>==
+==<references/>==
 [[Category:Legal Terms]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Discrimination in peremptory challenges==
-Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they can not be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group.  Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].   The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to unduly influence the jury decision process.  The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio  <ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>.  The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
+Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they can not be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group.  Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].   The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to unduly influence the jury decision process.  The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>  The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
 Where a party claims that the other has discriminated in its peremptory challenges, once they have established an [[Evidentiary burden]] by means of a trend in challenges, the other side must show some non discriminatory or "neutral" cause or the juror will not be excused.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, November 23, 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==<references/>==		==<references/>==
		+
		+	[[Category:Legal Terms]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Discrimination in peremptory challenges==
-Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they can not be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group.  Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].   The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to continue.  The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio  <ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>.  The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
+Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they can not be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group.  Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].   The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to unduly influence the jury decision process.  The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio  <ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>.  The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
 Where a party claims that the other has discriminated in its peremptory challenges, once they have established an [[Evidentiary burden]] by means of a trend in challenges, the other side must show some non discriminatory or "neutral" cause or the juror will not be excused.
   ==<references/>==

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, November 23, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a [[judge]] not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].) Normally, there is a specific limit to the number of peremptory challenges allowed to each side.	+	'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a [[judge]] not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].) Normally, there is a specific limit to the number of peremptory challenges allowed to each side. The justification for peremptory challenges is that if both sides are able to participate in the jury selection process, it can be better described as a jury of the defendant's peers, and they are more likely to accept the jury's decision.
−	[[~~Category~~:~~Legal Terms~~]]	+
		+	==Discrimination in peremptory challenges==
		+
		+	Interestingly, although peremptory challenges do not require a reason, in the United States, they can not be used to remove a person ''merely'' because they belong to a particular group. Thus in Batson v Kentucky <ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/79/case.html ''Batson v Kentucky'' (1986)]</ref> the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all [[black\|African American]] jurors involved in a criminal trial where the defendant was black constituted a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. The reasoning was that to allow such challenges would deprive the defendant of a jury of his peers, particularly in areas where blacks were in a minority, and would allow racial stereotypes to continue. The decision was extended to situations where the defendant is not of the same race as the jurors challenged in Powers v Ohio <ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZS.html ''Powers v Ohio'' (1991)]</ref>. The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1239.ZS.html ''J. E. B. v. Alabama'' ](1994)</ref> and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge <ref>[https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cpkUIV0WXSsJ:www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-6320.pdf+&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiTMc6yTGBeb51CQxiiycj4hb2NunnMBcWcivoMIv6LMSCZ9Q6XXM8YQpfmgrtWjQ5ogi3UPZ57Q0-9JWidHhsW-l2sBuumg_O2s3aW5i_ORCyISRkd9kqc27bDHSVuMiYjnLzd&sig=AHIEtbS2Nyjs4UTji7EDjfU9dk7hhp6nZg State v Hodge (2010)]</ref>
		+
		+	Where a party claims that the other has discriminated in its peremptory challenges, once they have established an [[Evidentiary burden]] by means of a trend in challenges, the other side must show some non discriminatory or "neutral" cause or the juror will not be excused.
		+
		+	==<references/>==

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:25, November 23, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].)	+	'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a [[judge]] not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].) Normally, there is a specific limit to the number of peremptory challenges allowed to each side.
	[[Category:Legal Terms]]		[[Category:Legal Terms]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, April 23, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].)		'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].)
−	[[~~category~~:~~legal terms~~]]	+	[[Category:Legal Terms]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, March 11, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Peremptory challenge is a request in [[court]] by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].)	+	'''Peremptory challenge''' is a request in [[court]] by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].)
	[[category:legal terms]]		[[category:legal terms]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, October 27, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Peremptory challenge is a request by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the jury. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a challenge for cause.)	+	Peremptory challenge is a request in [[court]] by a party that a judge not allow a certain prospective juror as a member of the [[jury]]. No reason or cause need be stated. (Compare with a [[challenge for cause]].)
	[[category:legal terms]]		[[category:legal terms]]