text:
Peremptory challenge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Use the lead layout guide to ensure the section follows Wikipedia's norms and to be inclusive of all essential details. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In English and American 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, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.
A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire.
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.
A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".
Contents
[hide]
1 Controversy
2 Jurisdictions historically or currently using peremptory challenges
2.1 Australia
2.2 England
2.3 Ireland
2.4 New Zealand
2.5 Northern Ireland
2.6 United States
3 Peremptory challenge of judge
4 See also
5 References
Controversy[edit]
The use of peremptory challenges is controversial as some feel it has been used to undermine the balanced representation on a jury which would occur using random selection. While courts are not allowed to strike out entire groups of people from a particular jury, some would argue that peremptory challenges give individual parties this power (Yeazell 624). This reach of power has allowed, and still can allow, attorneys to simply strike out groups of people, even if just on a whim (e.g. all football fans may be struck from the jury).[1] However, in the criminal case Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), it was held that the prosecution's actions of striking groups of people based on race violated parties' right to equal protection. This holding was further applied to civil cases in 1991 (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991)). Despite this, it still remains in use in several jurisdictions and in some cases leads to extensive and expensive jury research, aimed at producing a favorable jury.
In the American legal system of the past, attorney's power to exercise peremptory challenges was nearly unlimited; this fueled the controversy over whether this process tampered with the fairness of jury trial. In response, the American judicial system has begun to use restrictions. These restrictions have been put into place in different regions, some by statutes, some by common law (i.e. case decisions) (Yeazell 624).
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.
This effect can be (and often is) partially mitigated by giving the defense more peremptory challenges than the prosecution (e.g. when indicted on a felony in the USA the defense gets 10 challenges to the prosecution’s 6).
Jurisdictions historically or currently using peremptory challenges[edit]
Australia[edit]
See also: Jury trials § Australia
All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection; however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels can vary between states.
England[edit]
Peremptory challenges were first used in England not many years after the assizes of Clarendon of 1166 allowed jury trials. When the concept was first introduced into the jury system, the maximum number of peremptory challenges allowed was thirty-five. As time went on, this number reduced, and by the year 1509 the maximum number of peremptory challenges was twenty. By 1977, the number of peremptory challenges granted to each side was reduced from seven to three. The right of peremptory challenge was abolished altogether by the Criminal Justice Act 1988,[2] which saw it as a derogation from the principle of random selection, and felt that its removal would increase the fairness of the jury system.
Ireland[edit]
Peremptory challenges (referred to as "challenge without cause shown") are permitted in Ireland, with each side being allowed seven such challenges.[3]
New Zealand[edit]
Each party is entitled to four peremptory challenges in New Zealand, and where there are two or more accused the prosecution is provided with a maximum of eight.[4]
Northern Ireland[edit]
Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, peremptory challenge survived in Northern Ireland into the twenty-first century. The Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996[5] entitled each party to a maximum of six peremptory challenges in civil cases. In criminal cases, each defendant was entitled to a maximum of twelve peremptory challenges; however, the prosecution could only allowed to challenge for cause. Northern Ireland was brought into line with England & Wales, and Scotland when peremptory challenge was finally abolished in 2007 (Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, s.13)
United States[edit]
All jurisdictions in the United States (including the Virgin Islands) allow for peremptory challenges; the number depends on the jurisdiction and the type of case (i.e., more challenges may be permitted in a murder case than for DWI).
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 solely on that group characteristic has been ruled to be unconstitutional in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The term "Batson challenge" is used to refer to the act of arguing for the invalidity of a trial on the basis that peremptory challenges during jury selection resulted in the exclusion of a cognizable group.
Batson′s authority has also recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), and Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005). Furthermore, in 2009 the United States Supreme Court found in a unanimous opinion in Rivera v. 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 based on perceived sexual orientation is unconstitutional.[6]
Peremptory challenge of judge[edit]
Another form of the peremptory challenge (or peremptory disqualification), 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. 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.)
See also[edit]
Strike for cause
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Yeazell, Stephen C. (2012). "The Trier and the Trial". Civil Procedure (8th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. p. 624.
Jump up ^ Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.118(1)
Jump up ^ Section 20, Juries Act, 1976
Jump up ^ "§24, Challenges without cause -- Juries Act 1981 No 23 (reprint as of 1 July 2013)". Parliamentary Counsel Office. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
Jump up ^ Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, s.13-17
Jump up ^ Levine, Dan (June 24, 2013). "UPDATE 1-U.S. court refuses to undo gay rights ruling in pharma case". Reuters. Retrieved July 4, 2014.
[show]
v
t
e
Jury-related articles
Primary articles
Jury trial
Grand jury (Indictment)
Petit jury
Jury instructions
Specific finding
Deliberation
Hung jury
Jury nullification
Jury tampering
Jury research
Jury stress
Jury selection
Change of venue
Death-qualified jury
All-white jury
Peremptory challenge
Strike for cause
Scientific jury selection
Struck jury
Specific jurisdictions
Canada
England and Wales
Japan
Scotland
United States (U.S. military)
Groups
Fully Informed Jury Association
[hide]
v
t
e
United States equal protection and criminal procedure case law
[show]
Selective prosecution
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
United States v. Armstrong (1996)
[hide]
Discrimination in jury selection
History
Racial discrimination in jury selection * Women in United States juries
Racial exclusion in venire
Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)
Virginia v. Rives (1880)
Neal v. Delaware (1881)
Gibson v. Mississippi (1896)
Smith v. Mississippi (1896)
Carter v. Texas (1900)
Tarrance v. Florida (1903)
Brownfield v. South Carolina (1903)
Rogers v. Alabama (1904)
Franklin v. South Carolina (1910)
Norris v. Alabama (1935)
Patterson v. Alabama (1935)
Hale v. Kentucky (1938)
Smith v. Texas (1940)
Hill v. Texas (1942)
Patton v. Mississippi (1947)
Cassell v. Texas (1950)
Avery v. Georgia (1953)
Hernandez v. Texas (1954)
Eubanks v. Louisiana (1958)
Coleman v. Alabama (1967)
Vasquez v. Hillery (1986)
Fair cross-section in venire
Glasser v. United States (1942)*
Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. (1946)**
Ballard v. United States (1946)
Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
Duren v. Missouri (1979)
Holland v. Illinois (1990)
Berghuis v. Smith (2010)
Peremptory challenges
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Griffith v. Kentucky (1987)
Teague v. Lane (1989)
Ford v. Georgia (1991)
Powers v. Ohio (1991)
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991)**
Hernandez v. New York (1991)
Trevino v. Texas (1992)
Georgia v. McCollum (1992)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994)
Purkett v. Elem (1995)
Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003)
Johnson v. California (2005)
Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)
Rice v. Collins (2006)
Snyder v. Louisiana (2008)
Rivera v. Illinois (2009)
Thaler v. Haynes (2010)
Felkner v. Jackson (2011)
Foster v. Chatman (2015)
*Glasser interpreted the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. **Thiel and Edmonson were civil cases.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peremptory_challenge&oldid=788501466"
Categories:
Juries
Legal procedure
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia references cleanup from January 2013
All articles needing references cleanup
Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify from January 2013
All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify
Wikipedia introduction cleanup from January 2013
All pages needing cleanup
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Simple English
Edit links
This page was last edited on 1 July 2017, at 19:57.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: td

value: span

attrs: class role tabindex

values: mw-collapsible-toggle button 0

value: b

attrs: href title

value: small

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-citation_style

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-lead_rewrite

values:
mw-collapsible
width:95%; margin: 0.2em 0;

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-multiple_issues compact-ambox

values: Edit section: Jurisdictions historically or currently using peremptory challenges

values:
/wiki/Jury_trials#Australia
mw-redirect
Jury trials

values:
/wiki/Assizes_of_Clarendon
mw-redirect
Assizes of Clarendon

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 476

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545

values: Johnson v. California (jury selection case) (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals
mw-redirect
9th Circuit Court of Appeals

values: Edit section: Peremptory challenge of judge

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values: Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

values:
/wiki/Juries_in_Japan
mw-redirect
Juries in Japan

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template:Equal protection and criminal procedure

values: Template talk:Equal protection and criminal procedure (page does not exist)

values: United States constitutional criminal procedure

values: United States v. Armstrong (page does not exist)

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: Miller-El v. Cockrell (page does not exist)

values: Johnson v. California (2005) (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Thaler_v._Haynes
mw-redirect
Thaler v. Haynes

values:
/wiki/Felkner_v._Jackson
mw-redirect
Felkner v. Jackson

values: nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-subgroup

values: nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:Wikipedia references cleanup from January 2013

values: Category:All articles needing references cleanup

values: Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify from January 2013

values: Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify

values: Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup from January 2013

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Peremptory_challenge rootpage-Peremptory_challenge vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view