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.
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.
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. [1] Established by Batson v.Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge [2] prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex.
J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, [2] and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. [3] As in Batson, the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal ...
Pages in category "Batson challenge case law" The following 17 pages are in this category, out of 17 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. ...
In Hernandez, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the peremptory exclusion of two Hispanic jurors was tantamount to exclusion because of race—and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.The case is recognized as expanding a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike based on a juror's ethnicity. [1]
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. [3]
Ayala, who was of Hispanic descent, filed a series of Batson challenges to contest the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges. [32] The trial judge permitted the prosecution to explain the basis of their peremptory challenges in a closed hearing, outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". [33]