Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice ...
In 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, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.
In the 1794 case Georgia v.Brailsford, the Supreme Court directly tried a common law case before a jury.The facts in the case were not in dispute, and the legal opinion of the court was unanimous, but the Court was nonetheless obligated under the Seventh Amendment to refer the matter to the jury for a general verdict.
Jury duty or jury service is a service as a juror in a legal proceeding. Different countries have different approaches to juries. [1] Variations include the kinds of cases tried before a jury, how many jurors hear a trial, and whether the lay person is involved in a single trial or holds a paid job similar to a judge, but without legal training.
A Kentucky veteran who claimed he couldn’t work but ran a veterans organization has been convicted of stealing more than $100,000 in unemployment money. A jury in federal court convicted Jeremy ...
He said if a reasonable excuse is given, a person can be excused from jury duty. ... However, people should still respond to jury duty summons as the 1838 case is just the last published case, and ...
Kim Davis, the former Rowan County clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2015, will have to pay $100,000 in damages to one of the couples she denied, a jury found Wednesday.
Carter v. Kentucky[1][2] was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that trial judges in criminal proceedings must, upon proper request of the defendant, inform the jury of his right against self-incrimination, and that its execution may not be used against him. Carter vs. Kentucky. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued January 14, 1981.