Summary Of Peremptory Challenges By Michael D. Barnes

As for the opposing side, the author lays out the perspectives of a local attorney, Michael D. Barnes. Barnes credits himself as a working prosecuting attorney for over 20 years in disagreeing with the abolishment of peremptory challenges. According to the favoring side concerning the process of peremptory challenges: “just seat 12 randomly selected, qualified candidates whose minds are open to a serious evaluation of the facts”. In that aspect, Barnes questions the validity of who and how these potential jurors’ “qualifications” and “openness” are to be determined and to what extent. Subsequently, he asserts that his credentials allow him to obtain no difficulty in implementing impartial judgements accordingly. Thus, he utters that the best way for him to do so is through the current judicial system, including the entirety of its diverse nature in each particular case. …show more content…
If such, eliminating peremptory challenges may cause a greater downfall in the sense that attorneys may have to deal with the knowledge of possible unfairness living amongst juries within the courtroom. The author informs: “Studies by the National Jury Project in New York reveal that 25 percent or more of prospective jurors presume that a criminal defendant is guilty before the trial starts.” As a result, the peremptory challenge is disputed as a necessity due to the probability that jurors may not admit to any form of biases and/or fail to disclose accurate information without the process under