What is the significance of the Supreme Court decision in Edmonson for students?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. that under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, parties in civil cases cannot use race-based peremptory challenges to reject potential jurors.

US Legal Forms
Localized Forms
California
Orange
Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of...

Orange California Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury

Name: Orange California Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury
Brand: US Legal Forms
Rating: 4.83 (393 reviews)

Category:

Criminal - Jurors

State:

Multi-State

County:

Orange

Control #:

US-00820

Format:

Instant download

This website is not affiliated with any governmental entity

Public form

Description

This form is a sample motion requesting that the exclusion of illiterate persons from the jury is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Cites federal and state caselaw. Adapt to fit your circumstances.

View Chattanooga Commercial Real Propety Purchase and Sale Agreement

View this form

View Chattanooga Tennessee No-Fault Agreed Uncontested Divorce Package for Dissolution of Marriage for Persons with No Children with or without Property and Debts

View this form

View Chattanooga Tennessee Registration of Foreign Corporation

View this form

View Chattanooga Tennessee Business Incorporation Package to Incorporate Corporation

View this form

View Chattanooga Professional Corporation Package for Tennessee

View this form

How to fill out Orange California Motion To Declare Unconstitutional The Discriminatory Exclusion Of Illiterates From The Jury?

Laws and regulations in every sphere differ from state to state. If you're not an attorney, it's easy to get lost in various norms when it comes to drafting legal paperwork. To avoid expensive legal assistance when preparing the Orange Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury, you need a verified template legitimate for your county. That's when using the US Legal Forms platform is so advantageous.

US Legal Forms is a trusted by millions online catalog of more than 85,000 state-specific legal templates. It's an excellent solution for professionals and individuals searching for do-it-yourself templates for different life and business scenarios. All the documents can be used multiple times: once you obtain a sample, it remains available in your profile for subsequent use. Therefore, when you have an account with a valid subscription, you can just log in and re-download the Orange Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury from the My Forms tab.

For new users, it's necessary to make some more steps to obtain the Orange Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury:

Take a look at the page content to make sure you found the right sample.
Utilize the Preview option or read the form description if available.
Look for another doc if there are inconsistencies with any of your requirements.
Use the Buy Now button to get the template once you find the proper one.
Opt for one of the subscription plans and log in or create an account.
Select how you prefer to pay for your subscription (with a credit card or PayPal).
Select the format you want to save the document in and click Download.
Complete and sign the template in writing after printing it or do it all electronically.

That's the easiest and most affordable way to get up-to-date templates for any legal scenarios. Find them all in clicks and keep your documentation in order with the US Legal Forms!

Form Rating

4.83

Satisfied(393)

Form popularity

FAQ

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. that under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, parties in civil cases cannot use race-based peremptory challenges to reject potential jurors.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal casethe dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing somay not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.

McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race.

The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors.

An objection to the validity of a peremptory challenge, on grounds that the other party used it to exclude a potential juror based on race, ethnicity, or sex. The result of a Batson challenge may be a new trial.

Taylor, a male, sought to quash the petit jury venire from which his jury would be selected, contending that women had been systematically excluded from the venire, thus depriving him of his federal constitutional right to a fair trial by a properly selected jury.

Generally, Batson and its progeny prohibit the use of peremptory strikes to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Litigants are tasked with preventing this form of discrimination through the Batson challenge. Perhaps the most striking feature of the Batson decision is the date.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky ruled that a prosecutor's exercise of race-based peremptory challenges to jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Thirty years later, according to the experts, the law has been a colossal failure.

(Powell, J.): In a 72 decision, the Court held that, while a defendant is not entitled to have a jury completely or partially composed of people of his own race, the state is not permitted to use its peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury because of their race.

Interesting Questions

More info

Not properly filled out their ballot"); Votevets Action Fund v. The lower court with the jury to the Supreme Court and they get a record but other people do not get a record.If. I ever heard of discrimination that. In the Constitutional Convention of 1835, the resolution to deprive the free Negro of suffrage carried 65 to 62. Judge William Gaston of. California Legal History is indexed in The Index to Legal Periodicals. Of Africa, the author teases out the genealogy of rights, more especially from the 18th.

Orange California Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury

Description

Related forms

How to fill out Orange California Motion To Declare Unconstitutional The Discriminatory Exclusion Of Illiterates From The Jury?

Show more info

Form Rating

Form popularity

FAQ

What is the significance of the Supreme Court decision in Edmonson for students?

What is the importance of Batson v Kentucky in jury selection?

What did the Supreme Court rule in Georgia v McCollum?

Why is the peremptory challenge important?

What is a Batson challenge in jury selection?

Which of the following was Taylor's role in the case Taylor v Louisiana 1975 )?

How does Batson try to prevent discrimination?

Is Batson challenge effective?

What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the exclusion of black jurors from a jury Batson vs Kentucky )?

Interesting Questions

What is Orange Motion to Declare Unconstitutional the Discriminatory Exclusion of Illiterates from the Jury565244?

Why is illiteracy a basis for exclusion from jury duty?

Is the exclusion of illiterates from the jury discriminatory?

What is the goal of Orange Motion?

Are there any examples of similar legal challenges in the past?

What are the potential consequences of declaring the exclusion unconstitutional?

More info

Trusted and secure by over 3 million people of the world’s leading companies