In a procedure called voir dire, lawyers and, sometimes, judges question potential jurors from a pool of citizens summoned to court to serve jury duty. Voir dire (vwar deer) means “to speak the truth."
Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available. In order to serve as a juror, a person must be a U.S. citizen, over the age of 18, live in the court's jurisdiction, and have the right to vote.
Permitting jurors to discuss the merits of a case being tried before the evidentiary phase of the trial has concluded. A lawyer who addresses the trial judge and states: "I object on the ground that the testimony being sought by the prosecutor is irrelevant and immaterial" is making a __________________.
At this point (if not before, upon receiving the summons), a potential juror can request a deferral or ask to be excused due to the need, for example, to tend a sick family member or to take care of small children.
In voir dire, the attorneys question prospective jurors to determine whether they are biased or have any connection with a party to the action or with a prospective witness. A statement made to the jury at the beginning of a trial by a party's attorney, prior to the presentation of evidence.
Prospective jurors who have biases or conflicts of interest can be challenged for cause and discharged. Each side may also discharge a certain number of prospective jurors without giving any reasons; these are called peremptory challenges.
After questioning prospective jurors, each side's attorney may challenge certain jurors using two types of challenges: "for cause" and "peremptory." By challenging a juror, the attorney is asking the judge to excuse that juror from the panel.
When using a challenge for a cause, a juror can be excused by either the defense or prosecution, and no reason for doing so needs to be stated. Grand juries meet in secret, and a person under investigation has no legal right to be present or even to be notified of a grand jury investigation.
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.
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.
1. A Challenge for Cause - A Voir Dire challenge for which an attorney states the reason why a prospective juror should not be included on the jury. 2. Peremptory Challenge - Voir Dire challenges to exclude potential jurors from serving on the jury without any supporting reason or cause.
peremptory challenge. allows any party to remove a prospective juror from the jury panel without giving a reason. challenge for cause. ability to exclude a prospective trial juror if bias or prejudice is indicated.
A challenge that aims to disqualify a potential juror for some stated reason. Typical reasons include bias, prejudice, or prior knowledge that would prevent impartial evaluation of the evidence presented in court. ACADEMIC TOPICS. trial process/advocacy. courts.
There are two types of objections: "peremptory challenges" and "challenges for cause." Generally, there is an unlimited number of challenges for cause. When an attorney challenges a juror for cause, there was most likely something in the juror's background that would prejudice them in the case.
Challenges: The law authorizes the judge and the lawyers to excuse individual jurors from service in a particular case for various reasons. If a lawyer wishes to have a juror excused, he or she must use a "challenge" for that juror.
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.
The crowd of people who show up at the courthouse with jury summons in hand are known as “venirepersons, ” which means that they are potential jurors (the group is called “the venire").
Personal experiences that might affect the person’s ability to judge the case. While a venireperson’s experience with the subject matter of the case might make that person an informed juror, it might also make him a biased one. For instance, someone who has himself been the victim of a similar crime might be prone to project his trauma onto ...
These are known as peremptory challenges, which are ways to get rid of jurors who present no obvious evidence of bias or unsuitability.
Convinced that the juror would not be fair , the defense attorney uses one of his peremptories to excuse her. Another theory for the use of peremptories is that by letting each side dispense with the most unacceptable members of the jury, it results in a more middle-of-the road jury, one not subject to extreme views.
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. This article explains the common “for ...
Although lawyers don’t have to give a reason for using a peremptory, they may not use them in order to rid the jury of people of a certain race, religion, gender, or other protected status. If a pattern begins to emerge—the prosecutor excuses every Black juror but no White members—the judge will intervene.
A venireperson who states that he would naturally believe a police officer’s account simply because it comes from a police officer is predisposed towards one side from the beginning. This person will be excused for cause.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship.
In the process known as "striking a jury," the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.
Challenges for Cause. Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available.
Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn't be able to be impartial. For example, a juror who states that she would never vote for a guilty verdict in any case because her religious beliefs prevent her from sitting in judgment of another would be excused for cause. Implied Bias.
Any person who doesn't meet these criteria will be dismissed "for cause.". Judges will also dismiss jurors who can't put aside their feelings and apply the law impartially—that is, without actual or implied bias. Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn't be able to be impartial.
The states vary in the number of jurors required for a jury, ranging from six to 23. If too many potential jurors have been eliminated after the use of challenges, the judge can either summon additional potential jurors or declare a mistrial.
So, a juror who is a close friend or relative of a key party, a witness, the judge, or an attorney for either side will be dismissed for cause. Bias is also implied when a would-be juror's background or experience is likely to create a predisposition in favor of a party to the case.
Similar personal experiences could cause a potential juror to ignore the judge’s instructions to decide the case based on the evidence and the law without “passion or prejudice.”. When a potential juror has had a life experience closely resembling the facts of the case, that person will likely be excused by the court.
The defense lawyer might attempt to determine how potential jurors will react to that trial strategy by asking questions about the right to “stand your ground,” to defend your property, to possess firearms, and to protect others from harm.
Its primary purpose is to make sure that the jurors can listen fairly and impartially to the evidence and render a verdict in accordance with ...
Experienced attorneys ask questions to get a sense of how a juror will respond to the evidence and arguments in the case about to be tried. In most federal courts, lawyers submit questions to the judge, who will then question the potential jurors in open court. In state courts, however, lawyers are typically permitted to question ...
The process of jury selection should result in a fair jury, though lawyers will often use the selection questions to make sure that jurors will be receptive to their theory of the case.
By using a peremptory challenge, a lawyer can dismiss a potential juror from the case without giving any reason to the judge.
If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time.