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.
A challenge for cause based on the enumerated grounds under section 638, other than the juror’s name not appearing on the panel, will be tried by the last two jurors to be sworn. If no Jurors have been sworn, the judge will appoint two persons to try the challenge for cause.
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.
A defendant facing the death penalty may challenge for cause a prospective juror who would automatically vote to impose the death penalty in every case Georgia v. McCollum: 505 U.S. 42 (1992) standard on peremptory challenges from Batson v. Kentucky applied to criminal defendant Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association: 505 U.S. 88 ...
Republican Jerry Pittman's case took a turn when a court bailiff alleged the county official sought jury list for his trial. Accused of trying get jury list, Brown Co. commissioner pleads guilty ...
During voir dire, potential jurors are questioned by attorneys and the judge.It has been argued that voir dire is often ineffective at detecting juror bias. [1] Research shows that biographic information in minimal voir dire is not useful for identifying juror bias or predicting verdicts, while attitudinal questions in expanded voir dire can root out bias and predict case outcomes. [2]
The special grand jury convened for almost seven months, meeting in a courthouse in downtown Atlanta, and hearing testimony from more than 70 witnesses. Mr Trump didn’t appear as a witness, and ...