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.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2024 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. CAAFlog 1.0 CAAFlog 2.0 Archives
August 2024
Categories
All
|