Also known as: peremptory challenge · peremptory strikes
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural mechanism that permits each party in a civil or criminal trial to remove a fixed number of prospective jurors without stating a reason or establishing cause. The mechanism operates subject to statutory limits on the total number available to each side and to constitutional prohibitions against discriminatory exercise. Courts allocate the challenges according to the nature of the case and the number of parties while enforcing race-neutral and gender-neutral requirements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Vanessa and three codefendants faced federal charges punishable by more than one year in prison. The court allotted the government six peremptory challenges and required the four defendants to exercise ten challenges jointly. The defendants used their strikes to remove jurors they viewed as unsympathetic while the government removed six others without explanation.
During jury selection in a state criminal trial, the prosecutor removed all four Black venire members with peremptory challenges. Defense counsel made a prima facie showing of racial motivation. The trial court required the prosecutor to offer race-neutral explanations and then determined whether purposeful discrimination had occurred.
Harbor Stack sued its former engineer in federal court over alleged theft of source code. The judge attempted to limit each side to one peremptory challenge because of the technical subject matter. The plaintiff objected, asserting entitlement to the full statutory allotment of three challenges per side.
In a state paternity action, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove nearly all male venire members. The defendant objected that the strikes rested solely on gender. The court applied equal-protection scrutiny and disallowed the gender-based exclusions.
Christian sued Metro Fuel in state court after a pipeline leak damaged his property. Metro Fuel's counsel used peremptory challenges to remove every remaining juror of one race. The trial court treated the strikes as purely private conduct and declined to require race-neutral explanations.
A capital defendant presented statistical data showing that prosecutors disproportionately used peremptory challenges against Black jurors in similar cases. The trial court considered whether the pattern established purposeful discrimination under equal-protection standards. The court ultimately seated an impartial jury after evaluating the evidence.
When the defendant faces imprisonment of more than one year, the government receives six peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly receive ten. Multiple defendants must exercise their ten challenges together unless the court orders otherwise.
Supporting sources
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits strikes based solely on race or gender. A party making a prima facie showing of discriminatory use shifts the burden to the striking party to articulate a neutral explanation, after which the court determines whether purposeful discrimination occurred.
…During jury selection at his trial, the judge conducted voir dire and excused certain jurors for cause. The prosecutor then used peremptory challenges to strike all four black persons on the venire, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected. Defense counsel moved to discharge the jury before it was sworn on the ground that…
…a realization of the myriad of opportunities for racial considerations to influence criminal proceedings: in the exercise of peremptory challenges, Batson v. Kentucky, supra ; in the selection of the grand jury, Vasquez v. Hillery , 474 U. S. 254 (1986); in the selection of the petit jury, Whitus v. Georgia , 385 U. S. 545 (1967);…
…racial discrimination in the selection of jurors. See Strauder v. West Virginia , 100 U. S. 303. It prohibits the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. See Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U. S. 79. It prohibits a prosecutor from making racially biased arguments to the jury. See McCleskey v. Kemp , 481 U.…
…favor minorities when distributing goods or services in short supply, actions that create majority-minority electoral districts,
…do not eliminate the similarly situated showing for selective-prosecution claims because their contexts differ: Batson concerns peremptory challenges
Supporting sources
Each side receives three peremptory challenges under the governing statute. The court must allow this fixed number and may not reduce it for reasons of case complexity or scheduling convenience.
Supporting sources
Yes. Jury selection constitutes a traditional public function performed with significant court participation, so private parties may not exercise peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner.
Supporting sources
No. The rules require the court to allow the full statutory allotment in both civil and criminal cases. Reductions based on panel size, complexity, or docket pressures violate the mandatory allocation.
Supporting sources