During jury selection in a federal civil case, an attorney seeks to exclude a potential juror. The juror, when questioned, stated that they have been involved in a similar case in the past and felt strongly about how it was resolved. The attorney seeks to strike the juror using a peremptory challenge. The opposing attorney objects, asserting that the peremptory challenge is being used to improperly exclude the juror based on their race. What action can the court take, if any, to evaluate the objection?
The court rejects the peremptory challenge to address concerns about race-based discrimination.
The court does not overrule a peremptory challenge without legal justification.
The court conducts a hearing to determine whether the peremptory challenge is being used for a discriminatory purpose.
The court reevaluates the juror for bias and decides based on their impartiality whether they should remain.
The correct answer is that the court conducts a 'Batson hearing' to evaluate whether the peremptory challenge is being improperly used for discriminatory purposes. This is established under Batson v. Kentucky. A Batson hearing involves three steps: (1) the opponent of the challenge makes a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination, (2) the proponent provides a race-neutral explanation, and (3) the court determines if intentional discrimination occurred. The other answers incorrectly focus on rejecting the challenge outright, reevaluating the juror’s impartiality, or not intervening without legal justification. Importantly, peremptory challenges are subject to judicial review when discrimination concerns arise, and the process requires legal analysis rather than assumptions about the juror's bias.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is a Batson hearing?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes a race-neutral explanation?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is meant by a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination?