0
When selecting a jury, either party can make an unlimited number of challenges to potential jurors for cause. For example, if a proposed juror was a the brother of the defendant, the juror would be challenged the judge would excuse the juror because it would be unfair to have him on the jury. To challenge a proposed juror for cause, the party has to tell the judge why it would be unfair to seat that juror and the judge may accept or reject the challenge.
Each party also has a set number of peremptory challenges, the party excludes the juror without cause and the judge has no say. For example, if the defendant is a school teacher, you might not want another school teacher to be on the jury but you don't have any evidence that it would be unfair.
While there are few limits to peremptory challenges, they cannot be used to create a discriminatory jury. For example, if the defendant is Hispanic, you cannot use all of your peremptory challenges to eliminate all the potential Hispanic jurors.
What else can I help you with?
Who is the person that can be removed by a peremptory challenge?
jury
Can you have a sentence with peremptory please?
Peremptory means insisting on immediate action. He spoke in a peremptory way. Her peremptory behavior is offensive.
How do you use peremptory in a sentence?
Peremptory is an adjective meaning imperious, without opportunity to refuse or contradict, in the manner of expressing a command, putting an end to all debate. It is also used in law. Here are examples of use: "The chairman left the board meeting after his peremptory statement about selling the company." "Because of the juror's body language, the lawyer made a peremptory challenge to have him dismissed." "We had to leave the building peremptorily."
To what extent peremptory challenge and jury vetting is deemed to be unconstitutional?
to any extent
What is difference between peremptory challenge and removal for cause?
A peremptory challenge allows an attorney to remove a potential juror without providing a reason, while a removal for cause requires showing that a juror is unfit to serve based on a specific reason. Peremptory challenges are limited in number, while removals for cause can be requested without limit for valid reasons.
What is A challenge in which an attorney has broad discretion in excusing jurors?
It is called a PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE and is exercised during the Voir Dire portion of jury selection.
How do you use the word 'peremptory' in a sentence?
The teacher was being serious when she was yelling at the student about being peremptory towards her.
When can a defense attorney use a challenge to remove an individual from a jury without disclosing his or her reason for not wanting the individual on the jury?
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.
Removing an unwanted potential juror without the need to disclose a reason for the removal is accomplished by the means of a?
peremptory challenge
Which type of challenge is one used to exclude potential jurors from serving on the jury without any supporting reason or cause being provided by the attorney?
Peremptory challenge.
What would be an attorney's motivation for using a peremptory challenge during the voir dire?
Because, for whatever reason, they do not want that person on the jury.
Should the peremptory challenge be abolished?
There is ongoing debate regarding the peremptory challenge in legal systems. Some argue that it can perpetuate biases and discrimination, while others believe it allows for fair and effective jury selection. Ultimately, the decision to abolish it should consider the balance between upholding justice and ensuring impartiality in the legal process.
