Peremptory challenge

Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the parties to a court case to reject a certain number of potential jurors without having to give any reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Its use is controversial, as it has been used to undermine the balanced representation on a jury which would occur using random selection. It was first used in England, but in the 20th century its use was restricted and then abolished as being unfair. It remains in use in several other juristictions, and in some cases leads to extensive and expensive jury research, aimed at producing a favourable jury. All jurisdictions in the United States have some form of peremptory challenges. In the United States, the use of peremptory challenges by criminal prosecutors to remove persons from a "cognizable group" (i.e., of one race, ethnicity, or gender) based on that group characteristic has been ruled to be unconstitutional in Batson v. Kentucky, {{ussc|476|79|1986}}. Batsons authority has also recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke, 125 S. Ct. 2317, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005) and Johnson v. California, 125 S. Ct. 2410, 162 L. Ed. 2d 129 (2005).

Related Topics:
England - 20th century - United States - Unconstitutional - Batson v. Kentucky - 1986 - 2005 - 125 S. Ct. 2317, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another form of the peremptory challenge, available in some jurisdictions, is the right to remove a judge assigned to hear the case without showing that the judge is actually biased or had a conflict of interest. In jurisdictions that have this form of peremptory challenge, it generally may only be used once per party per case.

Related Topics:
Judge - Conflict of interest

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~