LyndyLoo
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,993
- Reaction score
- 3
I am going to make one post and one post only on this point..I happen to believe JP made an error or this ruling..as SA attempted to pre-empt this juror and DT challenged on Batson Challenge (racial discrimination challenge) and instead of allowing SA to counter that..they got hushed...then when SA tried to bring further evidence of grounds..JP refused to renounce his descision... Its now water under the bridge..SA has moved on..This juror will do what she will do..BUT MY OPINION..he (JP) made a huge boo boo not allowing SA to defend their reasoning...(Sensitive Subject)....
For those that dont understand Batson Challenge.here's a definition~~
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/Batson-challenge.html
Batson challenge
Definition - Noun
[from Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the striking of jurors on a racial basis]
: an objection in which one party argues that the other has used the peremptory challenge to strike one or more prospective jurors from the panel for a discriminatory purpose in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution
compare third-party standing
Batson challenges were originally applied to racial discrimination in jury selection but are now also applied when gender or sometimes ethnic background is an issue. The party making the objection usu. must establish by evidence a prima facie case of discrimination, at which point the other party has the burden of advancing a neutral reason for the strike.
Pronunciation'bat-s&n-
The part I have underlined also goes into gender biased challenges or strikes..which I think SA brought up today....It is indeed a problem..But it is so so obvious what DT is doing..and I happen to believe in the end it will Bite them in the BUTT!!
First and last comment...JP boobed..but ALL is NOT lost..I happen to think they (DT) striked a few jurors who could have been fair..and may end up having to accept someone they wish they COULD HAVE BOOTED!! :crazy:
For those that dont understand Batson Challenge.here's a definition~~
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/Batson-challenge.html
Batson challenge
Definition - Noun
[from Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the striking of jurors on a racial basis]
: an objection in which one party argues that the other has used the peremptory challenge to strike one or more prospective jurors from the panel for a discriminatory purpose in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution
compare third-party standing
Batson challenges were originally applied to racial discrimination in jury selection but are now also applied when gender or sometimes ethnic background is an issue. The party making the objection usu. must establish by evidence a prima facie case of discrimination, at which point the other party has the burden of advancing a neutral reason for the strike.
Pronunciation'bat-s&n-
The part I have underlined also goes into gender biased challenges or strikes..which I think SA brought up today....It is indeed a problem..But it is so so obvious what DT is doing..and I happen to believe in the end it will Bite them in the BUTT!!
First and last comment...JP boobed..but ALL is NOT lost..I happen to think they (DT) striked a few jurors who could have been fair..and may end up having to accept someone they wish they COULD HAVE BOOTED!! :crazy: