San Francisco Skyline
BILL OF RIGHTS-- First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-- Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law-- Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-- Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.-- Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law-- Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted-- Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people--Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people--.
Taking the Fifth-A Criminal Law Blog
RSS icon Email icon Bullet (black)
  • FAILURE OF JUDGE TO GRANT PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE NOT A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS

    Posted on April 1st, 2009 zshapiro 1 comment

    The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Rivera v. Illinois that a trial court’s erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge to a juror is not a violation of Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

    In both state and Federal courts the parties are entitled to voir dire jurors. Each side can excuse jurors either for cause or as a peremptory challenge. A challenge for cause occurs when the party believes that the prospective juror is unfit to serve on the jury. This generally occurs when the juror due to preexisting conditions is unable to fairly deliberate and decide the case, For example, in a domestic violence case, some jurors will state during voir dire that they will always side with the woman. Therefore since they are unable to listen to the testimony and impartially decide the defendant’s guilt or innocence a challenge for cause is appropriate.

    Generally, each side is also entitled to a limited number of peremptory challenges. In Illinois each side is allowed seven peremptory challenges. Historically peremptory challenges can be made for any reason and the party does not have to explain why it is challenging the individual. However in the 1980′s the Courts limited peremptory challenges by requiring that they not be made for a discriminatory purpose based on race, sex, or ethnicity. The lead Supreme Court case is Batson v. Kentucky

    At trial Rivera’s attorney peremptorily challenged Deloris Gomez. The judge erroneously denied the challenge on Batson grounds without saying whether the alleged discrimination was based on sex, race, or ethnicity.

    Rivera appealed claiming that he was denied due process because of the erroneous denial of his peremptory challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to grant a peremptory challenge is not a constitutional error and affirmed the conviction. Since Rivera had a chance to challenge for cause any proposed juror and he did not he received a fair and impartial jury. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution only guarantees a fair and impartial jury Therefore peremptory challenges are not subject to reversal on Federal appeal.

     

    One Response to “FAILURE OF JUDGE TO GRANT PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE NOT A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS”

    1. Many thanks writing this message and making it public

    Leave a Reply