Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: Blacks removed from juries
Message-ID: <1768@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 19:32:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1768
Posted: Thu Sep  5 19:32:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 09:55:12 EDT
References: <1042@ihlpg.UUCP> <185@pyuxii.UUCP> <11045@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 32
Xref: linus net.politics:10122 net.flame:10906

> >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 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-emtive 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

Perhaps one should abolish pre-emptive challenges.  I do not understand
their purpose.  On the other hand, I read about lawyers using expert
who gather sociological data about what kind of people may be more
or less sympathetic with the defendant.  It seems to be yet another trick
which makes an expensive defence effective.  I got an impression that 
there is a lot of complications in the trial law which benefit lawyers
and rich people, and which are detrimental to all the others.
They increase the cost of defence and jam the courts.  Rich people await
their trials at large, the poor ones do it in jails.
 Piotr