Thaler v. Haynes involves a defense objection under Batson v. Kentucky (pdf)(1986) to the prosecution's peremptory strike of a potential juror; Batson forbids
striking potential jurors from a panel solely based on race.
Not exact matches
In Virginia, the opposing lawyers are permitted to ask direct questions to
potential jurors before exercising their handful or two of peremptory jury
strikes.
That was a preremtory
strike, she acknowledged, that she could have used against another
juror if
potential bias against her were not in play.
The suggestion is to take away advocates» ability to exercise «peremptory
strikes» (i.e., the ability to reject a fixed number of
potential jurors without stating any reason).
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that in criminal cases, prosecutors can not use peremptory
strikes to eliminate
potential jurors based on the
juror's race, ethnicity, or gender.
Once an entire jury is seated and no party has tried to
strike any of the
potential jurors for cause or by using a peremptory
strike, the jury is generally sworn in and the trial moves on to the next step, often preliminary instructions or opening statements.
In dealing with
potential jurors, the peremptory
strike plays that vital role.
The state trial court judge upheld the
strike because the prosecution provided a race - neutral reason, but that judge did not observe the
potential juror's behavior.