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.
A defendant facing the death penalty may challenge for cause a prospective juror who would automatically vote to impose the death penalty in every case Georgia v. McCollum: 505 U.S. 42 (1992) standard on peremptory challenges from Batson v. Kentucky applied to criminal defendant Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association: 505 U.S. 88 ...
The term "Batson challenge" is used to refer to the act of arguing for the invalidity of a trial on the basis that peremptory challenges during jury selection resulted in the exclusion of a cognizable group. Batson′s authority has also recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), and Johnson v.
Pages in category "Batson challenge case law" ... Batson v. Kentucky * Foster v. Chatman; D. Davis v. Ayala; E. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. F. Felkner v. Jackson
[10] [16] During the selection process, Evans challenged African-American jurors with its first seven strikes, which resulted in a Batson challenge by the defense (Batson v. Kentucky (1986) established that peremptory challenge cannot be used to discriminate against jurors based on race, ethnicity, or sex [30]). [31]
Under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strauder v. West Virginia and Batson v. Kentucky, the striking of a juror on account of race denies a defendant equal protection under the constitution. However the court held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury containing or lacking members of any particular race, and ...
Need help? Call us! 800-290-4726 Login / Join. Mail
Kentucky (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but did not address whether defendants could use them. [2] The court had already ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991) that the Batson prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process.