For my blog about juries, I decided to focus on the challenge rights that attorneys have when selecting a jury and specific cases related to those challenges.
voir dire: is the process of interviewing potential jurors in which judges and attorneys examine their backgrounds and possible biases.
Attorneys are allowed to challenge certain jurors when selecting a jury, which is simply a request to dismiss a potential juror.
peremptory challenge: an attorney can challenge a potential juror without providing a reason
challenge for cause: an attorney must provide a reason when challenging a potential juror, whether it be related to some bias towards the case, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, knowledge about the facts of the case, an obvious prejudice, or an inability to serve such as having a mental disorder. The judge then decides whether or not to dismiss the prospective juror.
I think it is a good idea to give attorneys these challenges. I think both are necessary because it would not be fair for attorneys to eliminate an unlimited number of potential jurors for no reason. The challenge for cause keeps attorneys in check and requires them to provide a reason to throw out a juror. I think it is good that our courts allow attorneys to have these rights and that both exist to keep the attorneys fair and in check.
Listed below are some cases related to jury selection...
Strauder v. West Virginia (1879): exclusion of potential jurors based solely on race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
Batson v. Kentucky (1986): peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. (1994): peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their sex
I agree with the verdicts of these cases. I do not think jurors should be thrown out based solely on their sex or race. These cases give everyone an equal opportunity to serve as a juror, or at least through voir dire.
For the Article Project, my article can relate to the process of jury selection. The article discussed how race affects the decision making of jurors. The article attempts to clear up misconceptions about a previous study, but essentially describes that white jurors can be affected by the issue of race when deciding on a case. The study showed that in a non-racially charged situations, (meaning that there was race was not brought up during the crime) white jurors are more likely to sentence a black person for the crime. In a situation that is racially charged, meaning the role of race is visible somewhere in the crime; jurors are less likely to sentence a black defendant. Basically, jurors are potentially selective if they think race has something to do with the crime. If lawyers are aware of this study, it could affect what jury members they try to strike off. It is a very interesting study, which could have some big implications in the court room.