Motion Exclude

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. criminal procedure. wex definitions.

Prior to Bill C-75's enactment, the accused and the Crown could each peremptorily challenge up to twenty prospective jurors pursuant to s. 634(1) of the Code. In other words, the accused and the Crown could reject potential jurors from serving without providing any reasons.

Unlike challenges for cause, which must be based on logical reasons why the potential juror is biased, prejudiced, or unquali- fied to serve in a particular case, peremptory challenges are often inspired by hunches, intuition, or "shots in the dark., 20 As a parti- san, a lawyer uses peremptory challenges not to select

United States. In the United States, racial discrimination in jury selection has a long history. It is specifically prohibited by law, which has been defined through a series of judicial decisions. However, juries composed solely of one racial group are legal in the United States.

Independently, each side may exercise some limited number of peremptory strikes to excuse additional jurors without offering a reason. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that peremptory challenges cannot be used to systematically strike prospective jurors from the panel on the basis of race (Batson v.

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.

Those who favor retention of the peremptory challenge point to its four purposes: The peremptory challenge allows litigants to secure a fair and impartial jury. It gives the parties some control over the jury selection process.

Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal casethe dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing somay not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.

The peremptory challenge should be abolished for prosecutors. Prosecutors are meant to be stewards of justice.Eliminating peremptory strikes for prosecutors will still allow jurors to be struck for cause if they indicate they cannot be fair. The jury panel, therefore, would comprise only qualified impartial jurors.