Some of us have argued, unsuccessfully, that a military judge should allow the defense at least three peremptory challenges of prospective panel members. The argument is based on the idea that the convening authority (the prosecution) has unlimited peremptory challenges because of the members selection process. Alternatively, why should the trial counsel have any peremptory challenge if the convening authority has already said the members are good to go? Some have suggested the liberal grant mandate is a way to accommodate the imbalance. But to get an implied bias challenge you must still present some reasons for granting the challenge.
Today we came across Peter G. Berris, CONG. RSCH. SERV. R47259, Batson v. Kentucky and Federal Peremptory Challenge Law, for a Sunday read.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal views and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.