Feb 27, 2019 · At any point after a criminal trial starts, a judge must remove any juror when it becomes clear that the person is disqualified for any of the “for cause” reasons for disqualifying potential jurors before trial, including: bias for or against the defendant contact with the defendant, or refusal or inability to follow the law.
Apr 17, 2020 · A peremptory challenge is used by attorneys in the jury selection process to excuse potential jurors without providing a reason why. In this lesson you will learn about the use of peremptory strikes, as well as the laws designed to protect the integrity of the process. Subsequently, question is, what is the difference between challenges for cause and …
Jurors could be removed if they don’t follow important instructions from the judge, such as not using cell phones during trial proceedings, avoiding media coverage of the case, or not bringing outside information into the jury room.
Once a trial judge receives information that there may be a good reason to discharge a juror, the judge should generally hold a hearing to examine the evidence. In fact, courts in some states require such a hearing, in the presence of the defendant and lawyers for both sides, before the judge may discharge a juror.
And although 12-member juries are required for federal crimes, judges in district courts may allow a jury of 11 people to return a verdict if it has found it necessary to excuse a juror after the start of deliberations (Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., rule 23 (b) (2019)).
The process of selecting a jury (known as voir dire) is meant to weed out potential jurors who can’t or won’t be fair. But even after members of the jury are selected and the trial has started, the judges may decide that it’s necessary to remove a juror because that person is not qualified or able to continue serving. What happens next depends on several factors, including the availability of alternate jurors, the stage of the trial, and the jurisdiction (which federal or state court) where the trial is taking place.
At any point after a criminal trial starts, a judge must remove any juror when it becomes clear that the person is disqualified for any of the “for cause” reasons for disqualifying potential jurors before trial, including: refusal or inability to follow the law.
After removing a juror, a judge will move ahead in one of three ways: by replacing the juror, continuing the trial with a smaller jury, or declaring a mistrial.
Judges have considerable leeway (“discretion,” in legal jargon) when removing jurors. That means circumstances or conduct that lead to disqualification in one court may not have that result in another court, and an appellate court will ordinarily defer to the judge’s decision. At the same time, however, there must be factual evidence supporting that decision, as well as a valid legal reason that serves the purpose of preserving the integrity of the judicial process. The reason must be personal and specific to the individual juror being dismissed; it shouldn’t have anything to do with the issues in the case.
In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a juror because of a belief that the juror will not serve the best interests of the client.
A peremptory challenge is used by attorneys in the jury selection process to excuse potential jurors without providing a reason why. In this lesson you will learn about the use of peremptory strikes, as well as the laws designed to protect the integrity of the process.
No reason is required for a lawyer to use a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror. Such challenges allow each side to dismiss jurors who are otherwise qualified, but appear likely to favor the opposing party. However, peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race or class.
In order to show that the prosecutor's dismissal of a juror was discriminatory, a defendant must show that it was based on race, ethnicity, or gender. (It's not a violation for the prosecution to dismiss someone because of other characteristics such as religious denomination and social club membership.)
The exclusion of even one juror based on group bias is enough to constitute a Batson violation. The consequences of a violation depend upon when the defense proves it. If the defendant proves a Batson violation during jury selection, the usual remedy is to dismiss the entire panel of potential jurors, declare a mistrial, and select a new jury. Alternatively, a judge can decide to include the challenged juror in the jury, or to give the defendant additional peremptory challenges.
It's important to note that judges afford prosecutors considerable leeway in explaining challenges to jurors. If, for example, a prosecutor mistaken ly attributed the statement of one juror to another, the judge may find that there hasn't been purposeful discrimination. A judge may also determine that a dismissal wasn't made for discriminatory reasons because the prosecutor accepted other jurors of the same race, ethnicity, or gender as the dismissed juror.
Prosecutors sometimes excuse potential jurors for what appear to be discriminatory reasons. Learn what the defense can do about it.
Evidence that a prosecutor has made biased statements during jury questioning, asked very different questions of minorities than of white jurors, or used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges on minorities provides strong support for a prima facie case of jury discrimination.
The Supreme Court has refused to specify what facts a defendant must present in order to make the above showing (called a "prima facie case") of discrimination. Rather, judges must evaluate all the circumstances when deciding whether it appears that discrimination is at play.
While both the prosecution and the defense have the right to an impartial jury, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of a criminal defendant to a jury selection process that is free from racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination. In Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court created a process to determine whether the prosecution has removed a juror due to discriminatory bias. (476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986).) This process, called a " Batson challenge," involves the following steps.
The real reason that the lawyer from one side or the other definitely wants a lawyer off is that the jury instructions presented by each side to the judge are crafted in a way that each word carries specific meaning and, with that, is designed to lead to a certain way of thinking . Once the lawyers have fought over the instructions and the judge decides what will be presented, the jury only gets them in writing...in some states not even in writing, they only get them read to them without a copy to take back to the room.
When a jury doesn't understand a jury instruction, their only recourse is to send a question to the judge. In states where they have the instruction in writing, all he can say is "read carefully;" he cannot give his interpretation of what the instruction means.
Lawyers trying the case almost always try to use a cause strike to get a lawyer off, saying that they are biased toward either Defense or Plaintiffs based on the type of law they practice . The judge will usually not let them use a cause strike, saying that an attorney is ethical enough to apply the facts to the law and not sway the jury based on their personal biases that everyone has; plus, we're officers of the court so we have a duty to be ethical. Hence, they are typically forced to use a preemptory strike to get a lawyer off, but they will, every time. (If the lawyer just tried a similar case, then they'd get to use for cause .)
If a lawyer is in the jury, that person will undoubtedly be able to explain exactly what the law requires for a finding, or exactly why a certain finding should be had. They will advocate one way or another ; this is undeniable. The instructions are purposefully confusing. The reason is this: when we fight over jury instruction, inherently, one of us will want an instruction that is hard to understand, for a lay person. This is because we want them to apply the law as it is commonly (mis)understood, not as it truly is, because that's not good for our case.
They would undoubtedly explain the instruction to the jury . One may think this would be helpful, however, juries are told that any special knowledge they have about anything pertaining to the case shall not be shared as it could sway the jury. This is most true when it comes to a lawyer sitting.
Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case.
At least in the United States practicing lawyers are called to serve on juries. But my understanding is at least one side will always remove them before trial. Why would it always be the case that at least one side would not want someone with legal training on a jury?
A further criticism of this kind of jury selection is that it makes it easier to achieve a conviction, which critics argue leads to a higher chance of wrongful convictions. In most (if not all) jury systems a super-majority (or unanimity) is required to convict (e.g. in the UK over 83% of jurors are required for a conviction - a 10 to 2 majority can be accepted if a unanimous decision cannot be reached). If both sides are able to challenge jurors one would expect the prosecution to try to remove those with a general tendency to wish to acquit. Of course one would expect the defense to challenge those they think have a general tendency to convict, but if both sides do their job equally well then the tendency will be to turn what would have been a small majority (one way or the other) into a strong majority in the same direction, potentially causing the proportion to rise over the super-majority threshold required.
Unlike England, no statutory change has been made to abolish the right. Each party of the defence is entitled to challenge up to a maximum of five jurors without providing cause.
The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the correct thing, but might otherwise harbor prejudices that could infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial.
In American and Australian 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, ...
when indicted on a felony in the USA the defense gets 10 challenges to the prosecution's 6).
While actual determination of a judge's bias is not required to employ the peremptory challenge, the moving party must still allege bias under oath. In jurisdictions that have this form of peremptory challenge, it generally may only be used once per party per case. (See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 170.6.)
Illinois that "there is no freestanding constitutional right to peremptory challenges," even when a court was mistaken in applying Batson . Some jurisdictions have expanded the Batson rule to forbid the peremptory challenges based on gender, ethnicity, or religion. As of 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a peremptory challenge ...
Most California state court judges utilize the so-called “Six Pack” method of filling the juror box during voir dire. Eighteen jurors are randomly selected from the jury venire and twelve are placed into the jury box with six more placed into six chairs in front of the jury box (the “Six Pack”). Thus, there are, usually, three rows of six potential jurors. All eighteen jurors are examined together. As potential jurors in the jury box are excluded because of for cause challenges or peremptory challenges, the potential jurors in the Six Pack move one by one to fill the vacancies in the jury box. When the last of the Six Pack has taken a vacant spot in the jury box, another six randomly selected potential jurors are drawn from the venire in the gallery and they take their seat in the Six Pack. This process is repeated until all cause challenges and the peremptories have been exhausted.
Voir dire questions should be formulated around the strengths, but particularly around the weaknesses. The goal is to identify biases against your position.
Peremptory challenges allow potential jurors to be excused without giving any particular reason. When an attorney exercises a peremptory challenge for a potential juror, the court must remove that juror. The concept is that peremptory challenges act as a safety valve to permit an attorney to remove a potential juror who has individual characteristics which the attorney believes might make them sympathetic to the opposing party.
For cause challenges fall into three basic categories: General Qualifications , Implied Bias, and Actual Bias . General qualifications are requirements expressly listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 203, such as, a juror must be a U.S. citizen, must be 18 years or older, must live in California, must be a resident of the county in which they are being asked to serve, must not have been convicted of a felony or malfeasance in office, must not already be serving as a juror in a trial or grand jury, and must not be subject to a conservator. Implied Biases are also statutory qualifications. Code of Civil Procedure section 229, excludes people who are related to the parties in the litigation by blood or marriage, who are a party’s employer or employee, who have served as a juror within one year of the pending trial, or who have a financial interest in the outcome of the trial. And, Actual Bias is “the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party.” Code of Civil Procedure section 225 (b) (1) (C). For example, an Actual Bias would include people who state that it would be difficult for them to keep an open mind, admit that they are biased, admit to having strong opinions showing bias, or admit that it would be difficult for them to be fair.
During voir dire, an attorney removes 30 individual jurors, but does not have any concerns about the venire. What kind of challenge was she using to remove the jurors?
d. Judges do not have to worry about a person's flight risk because software can help police find them if they leave the country.
An attorney's statement to the jury at the beginning of the trial; the attorney briefly outlines the evidence that will be offered during the trial and the legal theory that will be pursued.
The judge's instruction to the jury, setting forth the rules of law that the jury must apply in reaching its decision, or verdict.
A motion requesting that certain evidence not be brought out at the trial, such as prejudicial, irrelevant, or legally inadmissible evidence.
An attorney's objection, during voir dire, to the inclusion of a particular person on the jury.
A motion requesting that the court grand a judgement in favor of the party making the motion, on the grounds that the other party has not produced sufficient evidence to support his or her claim.
Traditionally, a binder that contains copies of all the documents and information that an attorney will need to have at hand, during the trial.
The items submitted during the trial (pleadings, motions, briefs, and exhibits_ and the transcript of the trial proceedings that are forwarded to the appellate court for review, when a case is appealed.