Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Change in California juror selection?
Message-ID: <1225@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 15:25:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1225
Posted: Wed Sep  4 15:25:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 03:14:56 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 30

The following subject arose in net.flame; thought it could be better
discussed over here:

>From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: American Hostages
Date: 4 Sep 85 19:11:43 GMT

In article <10250@ucbvax.ARPA> csanders@ucbvax.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) writes:
>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 [California] 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-emptive 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