Sep 02, 2021 · An attorney may remove a prospective juror without giving a reason using which of the following? A) challenge for cause B) peremptory challenge C) judicial prerogative D) motion E) exclusionary rule. Categories Questions. Leave a Reply Cancel reply. Your email address will not be published.
An attorney may remove a prospective juror without giving a reason using which of the following?
A. challenge for cause. B. peremptory challenge. C. judicial prerogative. D. motion. E. exclusionary rule.
Dec 06, 2016 · An attorney may remove a prospective juror without giving a reason using which of the following? a. challenge for cause b. peremptory challenge c. judicial prerogative d. motion e. exclusionary rule
Which of the following is not a reason for the occurrence of assembly-line justice? The inadequate qualifications of those within the criminal justice system. Which of the following may be included in a judge's instructions to a jury?
A party may challenge an unlimited number of prospective jurors for cause. Parties also may exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason for the removal. Peremptory challenges provide a more impartial and better qualified jury.
United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) has held that plea bargaining is constitutional. The Supreme Court, however, has held that defendants' guilty pleas must be voluntary, and that defendants may only plead guilty if they know the consequences of doing so. McCarthy v. United States 394 U.S. 459 (1969).
A peremptory challenge permits a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason (e.g., disqualification, implied bias or actual bias) for the removal. During jury selection, each side will challenge potential jurors that the party views as most likely to disagree with their factual and legal theories.Apr 14, 2020
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.
Other common mitigating circumstances include: The defendant making restitution to the victim of their crime. The defendant acting out of necessity. The defendant having a difficult personal history. The defendant struggling with a drug or alcohol addiction.Apr 14, 2021
In short, the jurors determine the facts and reach a verdict, within the guidelines of the law as determined by the judge. Many states allow the lawyers to request that certain instructions be given, but the judge makes the final decisions about them.Sep 9, 2019
Plea bargaining is prevalent for practical reasons. Defendants can avoid the time and cost of defending themselves at trial, the risk of harsher punishment, and the publicity a trial could involve. The prosecution saves the time and expense of a lengthy trial. Both sides are spared the uncertainty of going to trial.Nov 28, 2021
own recognizanceDefendants who are released pretrial on their own recognizance sign an agreement promising to return to court as required—without having to pay bail as a guarantee. One of the bedrocks of the criminal justice system in the United States is that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When a prospective juror in a criminal trial is legally challenged for any legal non-discriminatory reason, it is called a: Peremptory challenge.
Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as "voir dire," which is Latin for "to speak the truth." In voir dire, the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent and suitable to serve in the case.
voir dire. -pretrial jury screening process. -where bias potential jurors may be removed for cause. peremptory challenges.