If an attorney allows his opponent to dominate the jury selection process, it is possible that the case could be lost due to prejudice before the trial even begins. Attorneys typically like to select jurors that they believe will be sympathetic to their clients' positions.
Even though the number of such challenges is unlimited, attorneys do not generally exercise very many because of the difficulty of accusing a prospective juror of bias or other incompetency to serve.
How Lawyers Choose Juries Criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by an impartial jury. An impartial jury must represent a fair cross-section of the community, which begins with a jury pool and then jury selection. By Deborah C. England
By challenging a juror, the attorney is asking the judge to excuse that juror from the panel. Much has changed during the coronavirus pandemic, including jury trials. Court operations vary depending on what city and state you live in.
The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.
After questioning prospective jurors, each side's attorney may challenge certain jurors using two types of challenges: "for cause" and "peremptory." By challenging a juror, the attorney is asking the judge to excuse that juror from the panel.
There is no limit to the number of challenges for cause. Peremptory - Each side in a case has a certain number of challenges that need not be supported by any reason, although a party may not use such a challenge in a way that discriminates against certain kinds of groups, such as a racial minority or one gender.
In California, for most cases the number of peremptory challenges available to each lawyer is ten so long as there is one defendant. For death penalty or life imprisonment cases where a single defendant is involved, each attorney is permitted 20 peremptory challenges.
With regards to challenges to the polls, a juror can be challenged on the grounds of bias, which would cause him to be unsuitable to try the case. For example, where he has expressed hostility to one side or connected to one side in some way.
sixCalifornia currently permits a party in a civil case six (6) peremptory challenges, and 10 in non-capital criminal cases. See Cal. Code of Civ.
(a) In criminal cases, if the offense charged is punishable with death, or with imprisonment in the state prison for life, the defendant is entitled to 20 and the people to 20 peremptory challenges.
peremptory - Each side in a case has a certain number of challenges that can be used without giving a reason. These are called "peremptory" challenges. Each side may ask the judge to excuse particular jurors. If a juror is excused, this does not imply something bad and does not mean the juror is not competent.
Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available.
Challenges for cause differ from peremptory challenges, which may be used by either side to remove prospective jurors for any reason. While there's no real limit to the amount of challenges for cause that may be used, the attorney must state a specific reason as to why the challenged juror can't be fair.
The attorneys may challenge some jurors and ask the Court to excuse them from the trial. There are two types of challenges; challenge for cause and peremptory challenge.
There are two types of objections: "peremptory challenges" and "challenges for cause." Generally, there is an unlimited number of challenges for cause. When an attorney challenges a juror for cause, there was most likely something in the juror's background that would prejudice them in the case.
Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available.
peremptory - Each side in a case has a certain number of challenges that can be used without giving a reason. These are called "peremptory" challenges. Each side may ask the judge to excuse particular jurors. If a juror is excused, this does not imply something bad and does not mean the juror is not competent.
Challenges for cause differ from peremptory challenges, which may be used by either side to remove prospective jurors for any reason. While there's no real limit to the amount of challenges for cause that may be used, the attorney must state a specific reason as to why the challenged juror can't be fair.
There are two types of objections: "peremptory challenges" and "challenges for cause." Generally, there is an unlimited number of challenges for cause. When an attorney challenges a juror for cause, there was most likely something in the juror's background that would prejudice them in the case.
After questioning prospective jurors, each side's attorney may challenge certain jurors using two types of challenges: "for cause" and "peremptory.".
Each attorney has an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges which are, as the term suggests, based on a specified reason or "cause" to challenge the prospective juror. A prospective juror may be challenged for cause because of: 1 exposure to pretrial publicity about the case, 2 a connection with a party, an attorney, the judge, or a witness in the case 3 experience as a victim of a crime that is similar to that being tried 4 a religious prohibition on imposing a sentence or otherwise fulfilling his or her role, or 5 gender, race, or other bias.
Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's peremptory challenges of African-American prospective jurors based on their race violated the prospective jurors' Equal Protection rights under the Constitution. ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).) The Court reasoned that challenging a juror based on his or her race, because the attorney believes the juror could not be impartial to a defendant of the same race, assumes that people of a certain race cannot be unbiased. This assumption violated the challenged jurors' Equal Protection rights.
The answers help weed out people who truly cannot serve as jurors due to physical, language, or irresolvable family or other conflicts. Then, the judge calls smaller groups of prospective jurors to the jury box for individual questioning by the attorneys (and often by the judge, too).
This questioning is called "voir dire" (v war deer), which comes from an Old French term for "to speak the truth."
A prospective juror may be challenged for cause because of: exposure to pretrial publicity about the case, a connection with a party, an attorney, the judge, or a witness in the case. experience as a victim of a crime that is similar to that being tried.
In federal criminal trials, the number of peremptory challenges allowed is ten for the defendant and six for the prosecution in a felony case, 20 for each side in a death penalty case, and three for each side in a misdemeanor case (Fed. R. Crim. P. 24.) (In a civil case, federal rules allow each side three peremptory challenges. (28 U.S.C. § 1870.))
The process of jury selection is called "voir dire," and the role of an attorney is to identify which potential jurors will be helpful to their cases and which jurors may hold a bias toward their clients. The considerations for voir dire can vary to some extent, depending on whether the case is a criminal or civil trial.
Attorneys typically like to select jurors that they believe will be sympathetic to their clients' positions. Because both sides are involved in jury selection, the ideal outcome is a balanced, fair and impartial jury.
Process. During the voir dire process an attorney may challenge a prospective juror for cause or by way of a peremptory challenge. If using a challenge for cause the attorney must show that the prospective juror holds a bias against his client, or that the prospective juror has an intimate relation to the case that could compromise the trial. ...
The considerations for voir dire can vary to some extent, depending on whether the case is a criminal or civil trial. Finally, attorneys play a very important role in selecting juror questions that will determine which jurors will be selected.
Importance. Jury selection is one of the most important tasks an attorney performs when preparing for trial. If an attorney allows his opponent to dominate the jury selection process, it is possible that the case could be lost due to prejudice before the trial even begins. Attorneys typically like to select jurors that they believe will be ...
Attorneys may turn to factors such as criminal background, socioeconomic status, occupation, familiarity with the legal system or a myriad of other similar factors .
Peremptory Challenges. A peremptory challenge can be used to eliminate a juror without giving a justification for why that juror is being dismissed. Attorneys are only given a limited number of peremptory challenges, so they must be used wisely when selecting a jury.
Yet all courts provide for the questioning of potential jurors to expose reasons why the individual might not make an ideal juror—one who can be impartial and fair. To that end, lawyers and the judge question each would-be juror, looking for evidence of impermissible bias. When such bias is uncovered, the individual will be excused “for cause,” which means that the lawyer making the challenge can articulate to the judge an acceptable reason for rejecting that person.
The crowd of people who show up at the courthouse with jury summons in hand are known as “venirepersons, ” which means that they are potential jurors (the group is called “the venire"). In large courthouses, in particular, it’s common for venirepersons to be given a form to complete, which asks a number of questions regarding the individuals’ personal circumstances. At this point (if not before, upon receiving the summons), a potential juror can request a deferral or ask to be excused due to the need, for example, to tend a sick family member or to take care of small children. The judge, sometimes in consultation with the lawyers on the case, will review these questionnaires and excuse venirepersons as appropriate (often with a promise that they’ll be called again soon).
These are known as peremptory challenges, which are ways to get rid of jurors who present no obvious evidence of bias or unsuitability.
Convinced that the juror would not be fair , the defense attorney uses one of his peremptories to excuse her. Another theory for the use of peremptories is that by letting each side dispense with the most unacceptable members of the jury, it results in a more middle-of-the road jury, one not subject to extreme views.
Although lawyers don’t have to give a reason for using a peremptory, they may not use them in order to rid the jury of people of a certain race, religion, gender, or other protected status. If a pattern begins to emerge—the prosecutor excuses every Black juror but no White members—the judge will intervene.
The questioning process comes with its own legal name—voir dire (vwar deer ). The questions are designed to elicit bias and predisposition.
People who have watched, read, or listened to such accounts may have formed opinions that will be hard to put aside. This is one reason why notorious trials are moved away from the city in which the crime allegedly occurred, in hopes that people living elsewhere may not have been exposed to such fare.