The Supreme Court case of JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. involved a child support dispute in which prosecutors used peremptory challenges to reject most of the men in the jury pool. Analyze the case of JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994). Which of the following is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did?(1 point)
Responses
The attorneys used the Confrontation Clause.
The attorneys used the Confrontation Clause.
Peremptory challenges on the basis of race were a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Peremptory challenges on the basis of race were a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The attorneys used secret trial proceedings.
The attorneys used secret trial proceedings.
Peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994) is that peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were a violation of the Sixth Amendment. This case involved the issue of gender-based peremptory challenges, where prosecutors had used their peremptory challenges to exclude most men from the jury pool in a child support dispute. The Supreme Court ruled that this practice violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury selection that is not discriminatory based on gender.
a b c or d
Apologies for the misunderstanding. The correct response is:
Peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. is that peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
To arrive at this answer, we can analyze the facts of the case. JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. involved a child support dispute in which prosecutors used peremptory challenges to reject most of the men in the jury pool. Peremptory challenges are a lawyer's right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without providing a reason.
In this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecutors' use of peremptory challenges based on gender violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury, and by excluding members of one gender from the jury pool, the prosecutors undermined this right.
Therefore, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did is that peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were deemed to be a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.