Why might an attorney utilize peremptory challenges?
A. to remove a potential juror based on gender
B. to remove a potential juror based on race
C. to remove a potential juror based on their residence in the community
D. to remove a potential juror who exhibits prejudice or bias
D. to remove a potential juror who exhibits prejudice or bias
An attorney might utilize peremptory challenges for a variety of reasons, including:
D. to remove a potential juror who exhibits prejudice or bias.
Peremptory challenges are a tool that allows attorneys to remove potential jurors without providing a specific reason. Attorneys may use peremptory challenges to eliminate potential jurors who they feel may be biased against their client or their case. This could include jurors who have expressed prejudice or bias during voir dire (the jury selection process) or who may have personal connections or experiences that could influence their ability to be impartial. It is important to note that while peremptory challenges can be strategic, their use based on discriminatory factors such as gender (A) or race (B) has been deemed unconstitutional. However, an attorney may also use peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror based on factors such as their residence in the community (C), which may be relevant to the case at hand.
An attorney may utilize peremptory challenges for several reasons. Peremptory challenges are the right of each side in a trial to remove potential jurors without giving a reason. The purpose of peremptory challenges is to enable both the prosecution and the defense to shape the jury panel in a way that they believe will yield a fair and impartial trial.
Option A: to remove a potential juror based on gender - This is not a valid reason to utilize a peremptory challenge. It is unlawful to strike a potential juror based solely on their gender. In 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Batson v. Kentucky ruled that it is unconstitutional to strike potential jurors based on their gender or race.
Option B: to remove a potential juror based on race - This is not a valid reason to utilize a peremptory challenge. As mentioned earlier, the Batson v. Kentucky decision prohibits jury selection based on race.
Option C: to remove a potential juror based on their residence in the community - This is not typically a reason to utilize a peremptory challenge. The residence in the community is not considered a relevant factor when it comes to selecting jurors, unless it is directly related to the case, such as a conflict of interest or potential bias.
Option D: to remove a potential juror who exhibits prejudice or bias - This is the correct reason to utilize a peremptory challenge. Peremptory challenges can be used to exclude potential jurors who exhibit prejudice, bias, or any other factor that may impair their ability to be fair and impartial during the trial. Attorneys may use their peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors who they believe may be predisposed against their case.
Therefore, the correct answer is D: to remove a potential juror who exhibits prejudice or bias.