Peremptory challenges are used by lawyers to remove potential jurors who may not be sympathetic to their side. The US has banned using them solely on the basis of race, but they can still be used based on ethnicity or gender. The main argument for their use is to eliminate juror bias, but they can also instill prejudices in the judging panel. Some suggest removing peremptory challenges from US law, as England did in the 1980s. The number of peremptory appeals is limited, so they must be used judiciously.
A peremptory challenge is one lawyers use to fire a prospective juror who may not be sympathetic to one side or the other. The strategy is widely practiced in the United States, along with striking jurors for good cause. The United States is not the only country to have these kinds of challenges, but some other countries, such as England, have abolished them because they are considered discriminatory.
The United States has prohibited using peremptory challenge to exclude a juror solely on the basis of race since the Supreme Court handed down Batson v. Kentucky in 1986. Despite this ban, such a situation can be very difficult to prove, according to many legal experts. However, the use of a peremptory challenge based on ethnicity or gender could be grounds for an appeal, if the case is civil.
The main arguments in favor of using the peremptory challenge are the elimination of juror bias. In other words, if a juror can use race or gender as a basis for finding a position for one side and against the other, then that juror should probably be eliminated even if he doesn’t directly express that view. This helps find an impartial jury that objectively considers the facts of the case.
On the other hand, the peremptory challenge is seen as a way to instill such prejudices in the judging panel as well. If an attorney can determine which individuals may be more supportive of a party because of those same issues, then peremptory challenges could be used to remove others who may not be helping the case. In such cases, it falls to the opposing counsel, if possible, to help balance the jury so that neither side has an inherent advantage.
Given that using a peremptory appeal could be considered a discriminatory practice, some have suggested removing it from the law in the United States. If this were to happen, the only means of removing a prospective juror would be a cause appeal, where a valid legal reason must be given to dismiss the individual. England abolished peremptory challenges during the 1980s and some felt there was no injustice created by the removal of challenges.
The number of peremptory appeals available to a lawyer is usually limited, so they must be used judiciously. Appeals for cause are unlimited, but the burden of proof rests on the attorney to prove a cause of law. In most cases, if the attorney doesn’t think there will be a problem finding a qualified jury, she can use a peremptory challenge just to shorten the trial.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
