The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky allows lawyers to dismiss potential jurors without having to state a valid reason. Opposing attorneys can block such a ‘peremptory challenge’ if they show potential jurors are really being excluded because of their race or sex.
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.
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. Sometimes, jurors may not have given honest answers during voir dire.
This questioning of the potential jurors is known as voir dire (to speak the truth). If either lawyer believes there is information that suggests a juror is prejudiced about the case, he or she can ask the judge to dismiss that juror for cause.
A peremptory challenge results in the exclusion of a potential juror without the need for any reason or explanation - unless the opposing party presents a prima facie argument that this challenge was used to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. See Batson challenge.
The right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge. During the selection of a jury, both parties to the proceeding may challenge prospective jurors for a lack of impartiality, known as a challenge for cause.
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.
A mistrial occurs when 1) a jury is unable to reach a verdict and there must be a new trial with a new jury; 2) there is a serious procedural error or misconduct that would result in an unfair trial, and the judge adjourns the case without a decision on the merits and awards a new trial. See, e.g. Williamson v.
They are discretionary strikes for counsel. They can be used by counsel to remove potential jurors who are NOT otherwise legally objectionable. They can be used by counsel to remove potential jurors who your gut tells you will not be good jurors in your case.
Thus, a prosecutor can legitimately seek dismissal of a potential juror who is likely biased and probably won't be impartial, regardless of that person's race, ethnicity, or gender. Since there are many ways in which a potential juror may be biased, there are many legitimate reasons for challenging a juror.
Under section 53A of the Jury Act, a judge must discharge a juror or jury if it becomes apparent during the trial that: A juror was mistakenly or irregularly empanelled; A juror has become excluded from jury service, or; A juror has engaged in misconduct in relation to the trial or coronial inquest.
Definition of acquittal : a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process.
Jurors are presumed by their oaths to be impartial judges. However, where the potential bias is clear and obvious, or where it can be shown that there is a reason to suspect that members of a jury may possess bias that cannot be set aside, then the jury can be screened by a challenge for cause.
When there are insufficient jurors voting one way or the other to deliver either a guilty or not guilty verdict, the jury is known as a “hung jury” or it might be said that jurors are “deadlocked”.
Jury deliberation is the process by which a jury in a trial in court discusses in private the findings of the court and decides with which argument to agree upon. After receiving the jury instructions and hearing the final arguments, the jury retires to the jury room to begin deliberating.
A mistrial is a trial that has essentially been deemed invalid due to an error that occurred in the proceedings or because the jury was unable to reach a consensus regarding the verdict. If the jury was unable to get enough votes for a verdict, this is referred to as a “hung jury.”