Explain the mechanisms of challenges for cause and peremptory challenges by which panelists are excluded from serving on a jury.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Technically, opposing attorneys do not select a jury; rather, the judge gives them the opportunity to exclude a number of potential jurors from the eventual jury. There are two mechanisms to do so:Challenges for Cause:In any trial, each side can claim that particular jurors should be excluded because they are inflexibly biased or prejudiced or because they have a relationship to the parties or the issues that creates an appearance of bias. These exclusions are known as challenges for cause. For example, a relative or business associate of a defendant would be challenged, or excused, for cause. Additionally, the judge may excuse a panelist for cause without either attorney requesting it if the prospective juror is unfit to serve. In criminal cases, judges often inquire about whether prospective jurors have been crime victims and may excuse those who say that their own victimization experiences would affect their ability to be fair jurors. There is good reason to ask, because mock jurors who had been victims of the crime for which the defendant was being tried were more likely than nonvictims to convict.After a prospective juror has raised a concern about the ability to be fair and impartial (or after one of the attorneys has done so), the judge will typically ask the juror whether he or she can be impartial. Then, using the juror's assessment of those abilities and observing the juror's demeanor, the judge decides whether to dismiss that person for cause. But judges may have difficulty determining which jurors are truly impartial. In making that decision, judges may be overly reliant on the juror's expression of confidence. Small changes in the confidence that jurors express about their ability to be fair (e.g., "I would try" versus "Yes") can determine whether they will be excused for cause or remain on the jury.Peremptory Challenge:Each side may also exclude a designated number of prospective jurors "without a reason stated, without inquiry, and without being subject to the court's control" (Swain v. Alabama, 1965). This procedure is known as a peremptory challenge. The number of peremptory challenges allocated to each side varies from one jurisdiction to another and also by the type of case (civil or criminal) and seriousness of the charge.Peremptory challenges have multiple purposes. First, they allow attorneys to challenge potential jurors whom they believe will be unsympathetic to their client, for whatever reason. The peremptory challenge has a second, largely symbolic function: When the parties in a lawsuit play a role in selecting the people who decide the outcome, they may be more satisfied with that outcome. The third function of peremptory challenges is to allow the attorney to begin to indoctrinate prospective jurors and influence those who ultimately will make up the jury.