Jury Selection Challenges
Jury Selection Challenges: Overview
Jury selection, or voir dire, is the process by which potential jurors are questioned and selected to sit on a jury. Attorneys for both the defense and prosecution (or plaintiff and defendant in civil cases) have the opportunity to challenge jurors to ensure an impartial jury.
Challenges are generally of three types:
Challenges for Cause (For-Cause Challenges)
Used when a potential juror shows bias or an inability to be impartial.
Unlimited in number, but must be approved by the court.
Peremptory Challenges
Attorneys may remove a juror without giving a reason.
Limited in number, depending on jurisdiction and case type.
Cannot be used to discriminate based on race or gender (Batson v. Kentucky standard).
Statutory or Procedural Challenges
For example, challenges based on juror eligibility (age, citizenship, criminal history).
Key Case Law on Jury Selection Challenges
Here are more than five cases that illustrate how courts address jury selection challenges:
1. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
Facts:
The prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black jurors.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors solely based on race.
Significance:
Established the Batson framework, requiring a three-step process:
Defendant must show prima facie evidence of discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.
Prosecutor must provide a race-neutral explanation.
Court decides whether discrimination occurred.
Lesson:
Protects the right to an impartial jury and prevents racial discrimination in jury selection.
2. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)
Facts:
The State used peremptory challenges to strike jurors based on gender.
Holding:
The Supreme Court extended Batson to gender, holding that peremptory challenges cannot be used to discriminate based on sex.
Lesson:
Gender-based discrimination in jury selection is unconstitutional, reinforcing impartiality protections.
3. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Facts:
Jurors who expressed general objections to the death penalty were excluded from the jury.
Holding:
Excluding jurors simply because of general objections to the death penalty violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.
Significance:
Established that only jurors who would be unable to follow the law can be removed for cause.
Lesson:
Challenges for cause must target actual bias or inability to follow the law, not personal opinions alone.
4. United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2000)
Facts:
The defense challenged jurors for cause who had prior law enforcement experience.
Holding:
Court allowed challenges for cause only if jurors demonstrate actual bias, not merely potential or theoretical bias.
Lesson:
Voir dire must probe for specific bias, not hypothetical concerns.
5. Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992)
Facts:
A defendant used peremptory challenges to strike jurors based on race.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that defendants, like prosecutors, cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race.
Lesson:
Batson applies to all parties, reinforcing equality and impartiality in jury selection.
6. Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019)
Facts:
Over multiple trials, prosecutors used peremptory challenges to exclude Black jurors.
Holding:
The Supreme Court found racially motivated juror strikes violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Lesson:
Courts scrutinize repeated or patterned discrimination in jury selection.
7. Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009)
Facts:
A trial court erroneously denied a defendant the right to remove a biased juror.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge does not automatically require a new trial unless prejudice is shown.
Lesson:
Highlights the limited remedy for improper jury challenges and reinforces the importance of proper voir dire.
Key Takeaways from Case Law
Challenges for Cause are unlimited but must be tied to actual bias or inability to follow the law.
Peremptory Challenges cannot be used in a discriminatory manner (race, gender, religion).
Courts actively review patterns of discrimination in jury strikes to protect defendants’ rights.
Errors in denying challenges may not always result in reversal; prejudice must be demonstrated.
Voir dire is critical to ensure an impartial jury, and the courts enforce constitutional limits on jury exclusion.
RELATED Blog
comments