Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!csanders
From: csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: American Hostages
Message-ID: <10309@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:53:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10309
Posted: Sun Sep  8 16:53:02 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 03:06:09 EDT
References: <1042@ihlpg.UUCP> <185@pyuxii.UUCP> <11045@rochester.UUCP>
Reply-To: csanders@ucbvax.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.politics:10866 net.flame:11856

In article Will Martin writes: 
>In article 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 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? 
I really don't know how that would be determined.  The state Supreme Court
here is noted for its attitude of 'We are going to rule according to
OUR personal preferences, and everone and everything else be damned'.
I imagine they would use the same sort have to look for a pattern
of discrimination, just as one would have to do in the case of, say,
housing discrimination, since other factors might be a cause for
the person being unacceptable.  In any case, making the lawyer state
his reason for pre-emptive challenge would turn the challenge into
a challenge for cause.

>(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


Craig Anderson.
csanders@ucbvax