peremptory challenge

• Peremptory challenges

• Disability-Based Peremptory Challenge: Need for Elimination

Introduction I. Past Versus Present A. Juror Qualification Requirements B. Challenge for Cause C. Jurors' Rights v. Parties' Rights II. The Peremptory Challenge and Its Application A. Batson and Its Extension to People with Disabilities III. Should the Court Extend the Batson-J.E.B. Model to People With Disabilities? Conclusion

• Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal
• Nbr. IV-1, March 2006

• Rethinking the Peremptory Challenge: Letting Lawyers Enforce the Principles of Batson*

The Supreme Court has recognized that the use of peremptory challenges is an arbitrary and capricious right, and it must be exercised with full freedom, or it fails of its full purpose. The Court has imposed restrictions on the use of peremptory challenges, ruling that they can not be exercised in certain discriminatory ways that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The modern standard for judging the use of a peremptory challenge, laid out in Batson v. Kentucky, is familiar to any trial lawyer: in a "Batson hearing," an attorney wishing to dispute the exercise of a peremptory challenge must first raise the inference of discrimination. This article proposes modifying the peremptory challenge system by placing the mechanism for enforcing equal protection right...

• Texas Law Review
• Vol. 85 Nbr. 4, March 2007

• Peremptory Challenge

The right to challenge a juror without assigning, or being required to assign, a reason for the challenge. D...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Mc–Pl

• State v. Russell, (Ohio 2012)

After second appeal, cause was remanded for a full hearing on an issue under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). At that hearing, trial court ruled that defendant had failed to establish prima facie case of racial discrimination in prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenge to an African-American juror in trial of African-American defendant. For the purpose of facilitating appellate review, trial court permitted prosecutor to proceed to second step of Batson analysis by proffering race-neutral explanation for peremptory challenge, and prosecutor did so. But trial court expressly indicated that it would not proceed to the second and third steps, because it was going to decide, as it did, that the defendant had not established a prima facie case of...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Oliver, (Ohio 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW - murder; aggravated burglary; aggravated robbery; comments during individual voir dire; failure to object; Crim.R. 52(B); plain error; R.C. 2945.03; peremptory challenge; abuse of discretion; Crim.R. 24; R.C. 2945.25; sufficiency of the evidence; Crim.R. 29; manifest weight; allied offenses of similar import; R.C. 2941.25; remanded for new sentencing hearing on the merger issue; maximum and consecutive sentences. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Commentary: Plaintiff Forced to Waste Jury Strike, Gets New Trial

Here's a tough court decision for me to get a handle on. How is it that a personal injury plaintiff could get a new trial merely because his lawyer was forced to use a peremptory challenge after the trial judge mistakenly refused to boot a juror for cause?

• Lawyers USA
• February 06, 2010

• State v. Mitchell, (Ohio 2011)

Drug possession; drug trafficking; pat-down search; warrantless search; “plain smell” doctrine; suppression of evidence; valid traffic stop; Batson v. Kentucky; peremptory challenge; sufficiency of the evidence; actual or constructive possession; rental car.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Peremptory Challenges in Military Criminal Justice Practice: It is Time to Challenge Them Off

MILITARY LAW REVIEW Volume 183 Spring 2005 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN MILITARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRACTICE: IT IS TIME TO CHALLENGE THEM OFF MAJOR ...

• Military Law Review
• Nbr. 183, April 2005

• State v. Walls, (Ohio 2010)

SPEEDY TRIAL; PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE; UTTERING; FORGERY.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Carlisle, (Ohio 2008)

Peremptory challenge; victim impact statements; rape; gross sexual imposition.

• Ohio Supreme Court