Juveniles' Responsibilities and Rights Citizen Participation In a democracy, we strive to strike a balance between freedom and order. Imposing crime control measures may make us feel safer but also may endanger our civil liberties.
When selecting a jury, both parties may remove potential jurors using an unlimited number of challenges for cause e. At the trial of James Kirkland Batson for burglary and receipt of stolen goods, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to remove all four African Americans from the jury pool.
Batson challenged the removal of these jurors as violating his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The jury convicted petitioner on both counts. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the convictions.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Whether the use of peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror from the jury pool based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? In a 7—2 decision, the Court held that, while a defendant is not entitled to have a jury completely or partially composed of people of his own race, the state is not permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury because of their race.
Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Once the defendant makes a showing that race was the reason potential jurors were excluded, the burden shifts to the state to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for the exclusion.
Justice White wrote that although the Court's prior precedent should have warned prosecutors that using peremptory challenges to exclude people based solely on race violates the Equal Protection Clause, the widespread practice of discriminatory elimination of jurors justifies the opportunity to inquire into the basis of the peremptory challenge.
Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed with the decision in the case, but asserted that the Court should eliminate the use of peremptory challenges in all criminal proceedings so that they could not be used as a front for impermissible racial considerations.
Justice Marshall asserted that under the current system, prosecutors are still free to discriminate so long as it is not blatant, and trial courts face a difficult burden of assessing a prosecutor's motive.
Stevens, J Justice Stevens asserted that the Equal Protection Claim was properly before the Court even though it was not initially presented by the petitioner because the party defending the judgment expressly relied on the issue as a basis for affirming the state court decision. Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that the Equal Protection Clause issue should not have been decided because the petitioner did not properly raise that type of challenge.
The Chief Justice also noted that reargument and further briefing on the issue should have been ordered given the importance and tradition of peremptory challenges in the legal system. Peremptory challenges had a long history in both England and America before the Revolution, and the purpose of peremptory challenges was to allow elimination of a particular juror without reason.
The Chief Justice also noted that the Court did not apply the conventional Equal Protection Clause framework to the claims before it because the state's interest in preserving peremptory challenges might be so compelling as to allow the types of challenges that happened in this case.
In sum, the Chief Justice asserted that "[a]n institution like the peremptory challenge that is part of the fabric of our jury system should not be casually cast aside, especially on a basis not raised or argued by the petitioner.
The State of Alabama, acting on behalf of the child, J. The state used its peremptory challenges to strike nine of 10 potential male jurors from the jury. As a result, all the selected jurors were female. The court rejected petitioner's claim. The jury found petitioner to be the father of the child, and the court entered an order directing him to pay child support.
Whether the use of peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror from the jury pool because of the potential juror's gender violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? In a 6—3 decision, the Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits striking potential jurors not only because of their race or ethnicity, but also because of their gender.
The Court concluded that discrimination on the basis of gender in jury selection does not substantially further the state's legitimate interest in achieving a fair and impartial trial.
The Court noted that "[w]hile the prejudicial attitudes toward women in this country have not been identical to those held toward racial minorities, the similarities between the experiences of racial minorities and women, in some contexts, overpower those differences.
Finally, the Court noted that its holding does not imply the elimination of all peremptory challenges, but simply concludes that gender cannot serve as a proxy for bias.Courtroom Participation Paper Courtroom Participation One of the core components to the criminal justice system is the judicial system.
The judicial system consists of participants who have specialized roles that are associated with the courtroom. Courtroom Participation Paper The courtroom assemblage consists of numerous participants, the prosecutor, defense attorney, defendant, judge, bailiff, witnesses, and the jury.
Each of these participants plays a significant part in the criminal justice system court process.
THE VICTIMS’ COURT? A Study of Victim Participants at the VICTIM PARTICIPATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT / 18 THE VICTIM PARTICIPATION PROCESS / 20 MODELS OF VICTIM PARTICIPATION / 26 “˜e Impact of the Rome Statute System on Victims and A˚ected Communities,” RC/ST/V/INF.˘ (paper presented at the Review Conference.
Regular members, who include law enforcement personnel, expert witnesses, and the news media, all have frequent courtroom participation, but less participation than core group members.
Occasional participants, who include jurors, crime victims, and litigants, participate in the court process on an infrequent or one-time basis.
Courtroom Participation Paper Courtroom Participation One of the core components to the criminal justice system is the judicial system.
The judicial system consists of participants who have specialized roles that are associated with the grupobittia.com are 10 basic roles that the participants play which include; judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, bailiff, court reporter, clerk of the court.
View Essay - Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards from CJA at University of Phoenix. Courtroom Participants Professional Standards Courtroom Participants Professional Standards Ashley cja_r3_courtroom_participation_chart (1) University of Phoenix Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards Paper 95%(21).