부산대학교 도서관

There exists a tension between the benefits and detriments of a jury selection system that employs peremptory strikes. Peremptory strikes are subject to abuse by attorneys who may improperly exercise them based on a prospective juror's race, national origin, or gender. Peremptory strikes are also seen as demeaning to prospective jurors, leading them to hold disdain for the justice system. Finally, allowing parties to exercise peremptory strikes arguably leads to a waste of time and resources. On the other hand, peremptory strikes originated as a critical means of ensuring the empanelment of an impartial jury. The Supreme Court recognized peremptory strikes as an essential safeguard for seating an impartial jury. Peremptory strikes provide an additional layer of protection, beyond forcause challenges, to ensure fair juries. Peremptory strikes allow parties to remove prospective jurors they believe are biased, even if the parties are unable to prove so to a judge's satisfaction. If the exercise of peremptory strikes can be problematic, but wholesale elimination of peremptory strikes is not a viable option because they serve such a critical function, then there is a need to explore other options. Reducing the number of peremptory strikes may be one reasonable compromise. This Article begins with an examination of the history of peremptory strikes, generally, before turning to explore the origins of the numbers of peremptory strikes afforded to parties. The Article then identifies the benefits and detriments of peremptory strikes that should be considered in determining the number of peremptory strikes that would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of peremptory strikes. In the penultimate Part, the Article examines empirical and anecdotal evidence suggesting fair juries can be selected even if parties have far fewer peremptory strikes to exercise. Finally, the Article concludes with a proposal for substantially reducing the number of peremptory strikes and, at the same time, recommends amending the law to bestow discretion on district court judges to grant more peremptory strikes when good cause exists to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]