enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Peremptory challenge - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge

    In law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.

  3. Jury selection in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection_in_the...

    A 2018 study published in the University of Illinois Law Review found that prosecutors and judges tend to remove more African-Americans while defense attorneys remove more whites. [14] [15] As of 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a peremptory challenge based on perceived sexual orientation is unconstitutional. [16]

  4. Strike for cause - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause

    Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.. During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a ...

  5. Scientific jury selection - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_jury_selection

    The second option is a peremptory challenge, where an attorney can exclude a juror without stating any reason. While challenges for cause are unlimited, attorneys have a limited number of peremptory challenges, sometimes as few as four, although 10 is more common in non-capital felony cases. [4]

  6. Foster v. Chatman - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_v._Chatman

    Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged.

  7. Powers v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_v._Ohio

    Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. [1] Established by Batson v.Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge [2] prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex.

  8. Juries in England and Wales - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales

    Peremptory challenges, or challenges without cause, allowing the defence to prevent a certain number of jurors from serving without giving any reason, were formerly allowed in English courts and are still allowed in some other jurisdictions. At one time, the defence was allowed 25 such challenges, but this was reduced to 12 in 1925, to 7 in ...

  9. Flowers v. Mississippi - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_v._Mississippi

    Peremptory challenges have a long history in the common law. In the United States they have been allowed by statute in federal criminal trials since 1790. States are generally free to legislate their own rules and procedures for peremptory challenges as long as they don't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .