Arizona’s top court is eliminating the longstanding practice of allowing lawyers in criminal and civil trials in state courts to remove potential jurors without explanation, a move that proponents said would help prevent discrimination in the selection of trial jurors, The Associated Press.
So-called peremptory challenges will end Jan. 1., under a
groundbreaking rule change ordered by the Arizona
Supreme court.
In the meantime, a court task force will recommend possible
changes to current court rules that also allow opposing sides in trials to ask
judges to remove potential jurors for valid reasons such as stated bias or
inability to serve, the order said.
Peremptory challenges are a hot-button legal issue
nationally as illustrated by jury
selection in the trial that resulted in the conviction of a former
Minneapolis police officer in George Floyd’s death.
Robert Chang, a Seattle University law professor, said
during an interview Saturday that he believed Arizona’s impending outright
elimination of peremptory challenges is believed to be a first such step by a
U.S. state, though others such as Washington and California have recently moved
to place new restrictions on the challenges.
“Arizona clearly has gone further,” said Chang, the director
of a legal center that endorsed a competing Arizona rule-change proposal to
restrict but not eliminate peremptory challenges. “Arizona’s move is big, and
it will be fascinating to see what other states and courts do.”
The Arizona court rejected the competing proposal and, as is
its practice when it acts on requests to change rules, did not comment on its
reasoning for its actions.
However, the two state Court of Appeals judge who proposed
the rule change in January said it was “a clear opportunity to end definitively
one of the most obvious sources of racial injustice in the courts.”
While many lawyers view peremptory challenges as a way to
“structure a jury favorable to his or her cause,” that interest should be
secondary “if elimination of racial, gender and religious bias in the court
system a controlling goal,” Judges Peter Swann and Paul McMurdie wrote in their
proposal.
The current system of allowing a side to object to the other
side’s peremptory challenge of a potential juror if discrimination is thought
to be the unstated motive is ineffective and inefficient, according to the
proposal by the two former trial judges.
Their proposal drew some support but also strong opposition
from within the state’s legal community while it was under consideration by the
Supreme Court.
Eliminating peremptory challenges would make it harder to
pick a fair and impartial jury because some potential jurors would be chosen if
they said they could be impartial even though one side in a trial thought they
likely weren’t acknowledging biases, opponents said in comments on the
proposal.
“Expecting a prospective juror to candidly admit that they
cannot be fair is not realistic,” Maricopa County attorney Allister Adel said
in a comment.
Supporters included nearly all the judges on a trial court
in one mid-size county. Apart from preventing discriminatory abuse of
peremptory challenges, their elimination presents opportunities to streamline
jury selection, the Yavapai County Superior Court judges’ comment said.
Chang, the Seattle University professor, said it’ll be
important to follow up the elimination of peremptory challenges by changing
other rules to allow lawyers more time in court to question potential jurors
about potential biases.
Otherwise, “it’s really hard to get the basis for making
for-cause challenges,” Chang said.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment