The value of preemptory challenges in voir dire

Quick background: before trial, both the prosecutor and defense attorney select a jury. Actually, “select” is not an accurate term, its more accurate to say “eliminate” jurors. First, people are weeded out that do to qualify for jury service (example: under the age of 18, or not a citizen). Then, questions are asked of the potential jurors to flush out any prejudices or biases that might affect the way the juror decides the case. If a juror is found to be biased, then he or she is eliminated for cause. But there is another way potential jurors can be eliminated – preemptory challenges or strikes. Strikes are reserved for jurors who do not have a bias but are otherwise undesirable to either the prosecutor or defense attorney. The juror can be struck for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Neither attorney is required to explain their strikes. In criminal felony cases in Texas, each side is allowed to strike 10 jurors in this manner.
This leads me to the question: what is the value in preemptory challenges? If all the unqualified and biased jurors have been eliminated leaving a pool of only qualified impartial jurors, why eliminate any more people from service?
Lawyers often argue that, despite being qualified and impartial, there are some people that are unwanted. A classic example is a juror who has a close family member who is a police officer. The assumption goes that those people are going to be more likely to sympathize with the testimony of the police officers, thus the defense attorney does not want them on the jury. The defense lawyer will use 1 of her 10 strikes to eliminate this potential juror.
The problem with this argument is that striking people based on assumptions is just that – assumptions; stereotypes. Remember, if that juror had actually been biased in favor of the police, then he or she would have been eliminated for cause. But assessing a stereotype that all family members of police officers are sympathetic to the prosecutor to the detriment of the defense relies on an unproven assumption about that person. Should a citizen’s right and obligation to serve on a jury be cut because of a stereotype? Doesn’t a courtroom represent the victory of facts over stereotypes; truth over falsehood? What’s fair in being struck because an attorney assumed you were bad for her case?

This is a justice topic that I feel passionate about and promise future blog entries. This is just the beginning.

----------------------------------
Adrienne Dunn is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Dallas, for more information, please visit http://www.dunncriminallaw.com/