Serving on a jury is important for citizens to participate in the legal process. Discrimination in the jury system is not allowed because it goes against the idea of fair treatment and justice. In Florida, the Supreme Court has ruled that jurors cannot be excluded based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. If someone suspects that the other side is using a strike unfairly, they must follow a three-step process to prove it. The goal is to make sure that jurors are chosen fairly and without discrimination. There’s a test that courts use to make sure jurors are chosen fairly. But sometimes, courts don’t always apply the test the same way. The test has changed over the years and goes by different names. If someone challenges a juror selection using this test, they can’t just say they have a “gut feeling” without explaining why. So, it’s important for both sides to understand the test and know how to argue their case during jury selection. Step One in a discrimination challenge during jury selection is to object if the opposing party seems to be unfairly striking out jurors based on their race, gender, or ethnicity. You can object by simply saying that the strike is racially motivated, and you don’t need to be the same race, gender, or ethnicity as the juror being challenged. It’s not always clear what groups are protected, but in Florida, race, gender, and ethnicity are definitely protected. Religion might also be considered a protected class, and it could be related to the question of whether a group is protected based on ethnicity. The court looked at whether a group had enough things in common to be considered an ethnic group and decided that it did. This meant that the group was entitled to certain legal protections. The court also said that these protections apply to both oppressed minorities and the dominant social group. If someone in a trial can show that a potential juror is part of a protected group, then the inquiry goes on to the next step. Step Two: The party that wants to remove a juror must give a reason for doing so. The reason doesn’t have to be very strong, it just has to sound neutral and not based on race, gender, or ethnicity. For example, a doctor might be removed from a case about medical records, or a chef might be removed from a case about work policies. A juror’s personal experiences or relationships can also be a reason. However, if an attorney just doesn’t like a juror, that’s not a good enough reason to remove them. Also, if a juror’s behavior is used as a reason, there has to be proof of that behavior in the court record.
Step Three: The court has to decide if the reason given for removing a juror is real or just an excuse for discrimination. The party objecting to the removal has to show that there might be discrimination. The court looks at things like the racial makeup of the group of potential jurors, if there’s a pattern of removing people from the same race, and if the reason for removing a juror could apply to other jurors who weren’t removed. The court has to decide based on what the party actually believes, not just what the court thinks is right. When a trial court makes a decision about allowing or disallowing a peremptory strike, it’s based on credibility, and the trial court has the best perspective to consider things like how people act and speak. If the trial court makes a mistake in this process, Florida’s higher courts will often order a new trial. This is because peremptory challenges are meant to make sure that juries are fair and impartial. However, the issue needs to be properly brought up in court for the higher courts to consider it. It’s important for lawyers to understand and avoid the common mistakes that can lead to this issue not being properly brought up in court. When objecting to a juror being dismissed, the objecting party must clearly state the reason for the objection. They can’t just say the reason is race and then later say it’s because of religion. They must also show that the reason given for the dismissal is not true. They can’t wait until later to challenge the reason for the dismissal. They have to give a specific reason for doubting the given reason. If they don’t do this, they can’t challenge the dismissal later on. The trial court doesn’t have to use specific words when making a decision, but it’s important to have a clear record of the arguments and the court’s reasoning. When a lawyer disagrees with the selection of a juror, they need to object before the jury is chosen. If they don’t, they can’t complain about it later. Sometimes, if the objection is made but the jury is chosen really quickly afterward, the objection is still valid. But it’s safer for the lawyer to make the objection again before the jury is chosen, just to be sure. It’s important for lawyers to be careful during jury selection to make sure their client gets a fair trial.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-neil-inquiry-navigating-the-peremptory-process/
Leave a Reply