wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/04/85)
The following subject arose in net.flame; thought it could be better discussed over here: >From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: Re: American Hostages Date: 4 Sep 85 19:11:43 GMT In article <10250@ucbvax.ARPA> csanders@ucbvax.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) writes: >The other type of challenge is the pre-emptive challenge. An attorney may >object to a juror without showing cause using this challenge, and the juror >is automatically excused. While an attorney may challenge for cause as much >as he/she wishes, the lawyer get only a certain amount of pre-emptive >challenges. The [California] Supreme Court ruled that an attorney may not >use the pre-emptive challenge to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. > >Craig Anderson So how is it proven that the lawyer is using his/her pre-emptive challenges on this basis? Since cause need not be stated, how is the racial cause determined? Is there a concomitant requirement to state the cause for challenging any rejected juror, even if this was a pre-emptive challenge rejection? (That is, does the court record have to include what reasons the lawyer determined were the grounds for the pre-emptive challenge? [This means that the lawyers would *have* to state a reason even for pre-emptive challenges. Is this what this court decision means?] Couldn't the lawyer simply use income, or job, or "general demeanor" as his/her reason?) Will