In response, state laws generally allow attorneys to make unlimited challenges to excuse biased jurors for just cause. These are unlike preemptory challenges which an attorney can exercise a limited number of times without providing a reason to the court.
These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential juror without stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a juror because of a belief that the juror will not serve the best interests of the client.
These are unlike preemptory challenges which an attorney can exercise a limited number of times without providing a reason to the court. A prospective juror, however, may not be excluded by the use of discriminatory challenges, such as those based on racial criteria or gender.
Each lawyer may request the dismissal of an unlimited number of jurors for cause. Each request will be considered by the judge and may or may not be allowed. In addition to challenges for cause, each lawyer has a specific number of peremptory challenges.
Unlike England, no statutory change has been made to abolish the right. Each party of the defence is entitled to challenge up to a maximum of five jurors without providing cause.
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).
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). 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.
The number of challenges awarded to each of the prosecutor and the defense depended on the type of charge and maximum potential sentence. Twenty challenges were awarded in cases for high treason and first degree murder, twelve challenges for offenses with a maximum penalty greater than five years, and four challenges for jury eligible offenses with a penalty of five years or less; However, in cases where the judge orders that thirteen or fourteen jurors be sworn in as opposed to the usual twelve, both the prosecution and the defense received one additional challenge per additional juror seat.
In American and Australian 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, ...
Australia. See also: Jury trial § Australia. All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection; however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels can vary between states.
United States. 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).