Difference between revisions of "Peremptory challenge"
m (bold) |
m |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| 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. 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. |
| − | [[ | + | |
| + | ==Discrimination in peremptory challenges== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Legal Terms]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:41, February 25, 2026
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.
Discrimination in peremptory challenges
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 [1] the Supreme Court found the prosecution tactic of automatically challenging all 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.[2] The principle was further extended to gender in J. E. B. v Alabama[3] and recently to religious affiliation in State v. Hodge [4]
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.