It is called a PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE and is exercised during the Voir Dire portion of jury selection.
Peremptory challenge.
Before a trial, the prosecutor and defense attorney select a jury through a process called voir dire. During this process, potential jurors are questioned to assess their suitability for the case, ensuring they can remain impartial. Both sides can challenge or dismiss certain jurors, ultimately agreeing on a final panel that will hear the case. The selected jurors are tasked with evaluating the evidence and rendering a verdict.
Attorneys will ask prospective jurors various questions to determine if they will be a good fit for the jury. Prospective jurors can be dismissed if the attorney feels they are biased.
When a defense attorney believes the jury pool is biased, they will typically make a challenge for cause. This challenge requests that the court dismiss a potential juror based on specific biases or prejudices that may affect their impartiality. If the judge agrees, that juror is removed from the pool. The attorney may also use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors without stating a reason, but these are limited in number.
The number of jurors in a trial can vary based on the type of case and the jurisdiction's laws. Typically, criminal trials feature 12 jurors, while civil cases may have fewer, often 6 to 12 jurors. Some jurisdictions allow for larger juries, such as 18 jurors, to ensure a more comprehensive deliberation process, particularly in complex cases. Ultimately, the specific number of jurors is determined by the legal framework governing the trial and the discretion of the court.
Both parties choose the jury. In many cases prospective jurors will be asked to answer a series of questions. Both sides can then interview jurors and each gets to reject or accept them.
A defense attorney can use a peremptory challenge to remove an individual from a jury without disclosing the reason during the jury selection process. Each side typically has a limited number of peremptory challenges, allowing them to exclude jurors without cause. However, this must be done within the constraints of the law, as peremptory challenges cannot be used to discriminate based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. If the opposing party suspects discrimination, they can raise a Batson challenge, requiring the attorney to provide a race-neutral explanation for the removal.
The number of potential jurors that can be excused by the prosecution varies depending on the jurisdiction and the specific case. Generally, prosecution can use "peremptory challenges" to excuse a limited number of jurors without giving a reason, which is typically between 3 to 10 jurors in most cases. Additionally, they can challenge jurors for cause, which does not have a set limit. Overall, the exact number can differ based on local laws and the type of trial.
According to the Juries Act (2007), $712 are available at the start of each day to be split between jurors and reserve jurors/etc at the Sheriffs discretion. Jurors must submit a Juror Allowance Claim Form to collect a share, but the share may be less than $712/number of submitted claims. For each day of trial, I'd expect somewhere far short of the $50 mark, and for each day of deliberations somewhere slightly shorter of the $60 mark.
The bailiff will take attendance of the jurors.
The strongest argument in favor of eliminating the peremptory challenge is that it can perpetuate systemic biases and discrimination, as it allows attorneys to exclude jurors without needing to provide a reason, often leading to racially or socially motivated exclusions. In contrast, the strongest argument for retaining it is that peremptory challenges provide attorneys with a tool to shape a jury that they believe will be more favorable to their case, thus preserving a degree of strategic discretion in the trial process. Balancing fairness and strategic interests is key in this debate.
We are fresh out of qualified jurors in this county.