Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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.
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.
The process of selecting the jury will be lengthy and riddled with unique challenges brought on by the defendant being one of the most well-known men in the world, one whom almost everyone has an ...
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] Attorneys have long used peremptory challenges to exclude undesirable prospective jurors, but have not always been successful at identifying these.
In Canada, the number of peremptory challenges (i.e., challenges for which no reason is given) for jury selection was governed by Section 634 of the Criminal Code of Canada. §634 of the Criminal Code of Canada was repealed by Bill C-75, which came into effect on September 19, 2019, and peremptory challenges have therefore been eliminated.
A struck jury is a multi-step process of selecting a jury from a pool. First potential jurors are eliminated for hardship. Second jurors are eliminated for cause by conducting voir dire until there is a pool available that is exactly the size of the final jury (including required alternates) plus the number of peremptory challenges available to each side.
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), was a U.S. Supreme Court case where the court ruled that a state statute providing the state unlimited challenge for cause of jurors who might have any objection to the death penalty violated the constitutional right to an impartial jury.