Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17–9572, 588 U.S. 284 (2019), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials for Curtis Flowers, a black man convicted on murder charges.
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.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. [1] Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.
At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. [2] The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". [3]
In Hernandez, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the peremptory exclusion of two Hispanic jurors was tantamount to exclusion because of race—and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.The case is recognized as expanding a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike based on a juror's ethnicity. [1]
And yet, when it was time for challenges, the "State used a peremptory challenge on this juror," the motion says. The defense objected and requested an analysis, as required by legal precedent.
The judge deemed the challenge to be based on discriminatory factors and allowed the juror to be seated. [1] Rivera appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing the peremptory challenge. The Illinois Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to explain why the peremptory challenge in question was discriminatory. The ...