|
Strike For Cause
Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States. During the jury selection process, after ''voir dire'', opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a suitable punishment.Arbetman, Lee P. & O'Brien, Edward L. ''Glencoe Street Law'', pg. 50,648. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, New York, 2005. . An example would be a potential juror in a murder case, where the sentencing options include the death penalty and a lesser sentence (such as life without parole), who states that they "would sentence a defendant to death if found guilty"; such a statement may indicate the person's unwillingness to fairly consider a life without parole sentence. Unlike a peremptory challenge (the number of which are limited by the court during ''voir dire'', and unless a Batson chal ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Juries developed in England during the Middle Ages and are a hallmark of the English common law system. As such, they are used by the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and other countries whose legal systems were derived from the British Empire. But most other countries use variations of the European civil law or Islamic sharia law systems, in which juries are not generally used. Most trial juries are " petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. Historically, a larger jury known as a grand jury was used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects. All common law countries except the United States and Liberia have phased these out. The modern criminal court jury arrangement has evolved out of the medi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jury Selection
Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors (the "jury pool", also known as the ''venire'') is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom. The prospective jurors are randomly selected to sit in the jury box. At this stage, they will be questioned in court by the judge and/or attorneys in the United States. Depending on the jurisdiction, attorneys may have an opportunity to mount a ''challenge for cause'' argument or use one of a limited number of peremptory challenges. In some jurisdictions that have capital punishment, the jury must be death-qualified to remove those who are opposed to the death penalty. Jury selection and techniques for '' voir dire'' are taught to law students in trial advocacy ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Voir Dire
(; often ; from an Anglo-Norman phrase meaning "to speak the truth") is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury trials. It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth ( la, verum dicere). This term is also used informally to describe the practice of jury selection in certain jurisdictions. Etymology According to the ''American Heritage Dictionary'', it comes from the Anglo-Norman language. The word (or ), in this combination, comes from Old French and derives from Latin , "hat which istrue". It is related to the modern French word , which in a deprecated use can mean "indeed", but not to the more common word , "to see", which derives from Latin . William Blackstone referred to it as , which was translated by John Winter Jones as "To speak the truth". However, the expression is now often interpreted by false etymology to mean "to see hemsay". The term is used (as ) in modern Canadian legal French. Historic use In earlier centur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Peremptory Challenge
In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of '' voir dire''. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch". The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the co ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Batson Challenge
''Batson v. Kentucky'', 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term ''Batson challenge'', an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of ''Batson'' to civil cases (''Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company'') and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex (''J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.''). The principle had been established previously by several state courts, including the California Supreme Court in 1978, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1979, and the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
American Legal Terminology
American(s) may refer to: * American, something of, from, or related to the United States of America, commonly known as the "United States" or "America" ** Americans, citizens and nationals of the United States of America ** American ancestry, people who self-identify their ancestry as "American" ** American English, the set of varieties of the English language native to the United States ** Native Americans in the United States, indigenous peoples of the United States * American, something of, from, or related to the Americas, also known as "America" ** Indigenous peoples of the Americas * American (word), for analysis and history of the meanings in various contexts Organizations * American Airlines, U.S.-based airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas * American Athletic Conference, an American college athletic conference * American Recordings (record label), a record label previously known as Def American * American University, in Washington, D.C. Sports teams Soccer * ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Civil Procedure
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits (as opposed to procedures in criminal law matters). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process (if any) is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function. Differences between civil and criminal procedure In most cases, criminal prosecutions are pursued by the state in order to punish offenders, although some systems, such as in English and French law, allow private citizens to bring a private prosecution. Conversely, civil actions are initiated by private individuals, companies or organizations, for their own ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Criminal Procedure
Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure. Basic rights Currently, in many countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, as opposed to having the defense prove that they are innocent, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the defendant. This provision, known as the presumption of innocence, is required, for example, in the 46 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
