The end of peremptory challenges in Title VII cases?
Allowing peremptory challenges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is inappropriate, wasteful, and not likely to survive. The US Supreme Court limited the use of peremptory challenges and provided trial courts with a three-part test in Batson v. Kentucky, which has been extended to civil cases in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. However, peremptory challenges do not serve the purpose of ensuring an impartial jury and the Batson test is fundamentally unworkable, particularly in Title VII cases.
Publication Name: Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel Quarterly
Silencing nullification advocacy inside the jury room and outside the courtroom
Jury nullification is not a practice protected by the Constitution and should be limited as much as possible to its function of merely supporting constitutional values. Proponents of nullification incorrectly view it as an independent method supporting fundamental rights. The judiciary should have discretion to limit nullification after as well as before it occurs. Control methods could include eliminating jury nullifiers and limiting advocacy of nullification external to the courtroom.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
- Abstracts: Loosening Congress' purse strings: two courts enjoin restrictions on use of nonfederal funds by legal aid groups
- Abstracts: Common law exception permitting recovery of attorney's fees: use in appellate courts. Liability to spectators at sporting events
- Abstracts: Regulatory reform in transition: the telecommunications industry and MFJ regulation. The shape of competition under Title VII of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
- Abstracts: California domain name bill draws fire. The Electronic FOIA amendments of 1996: reformatting the FOIA for on-line access
- Abstracts: "Sullivan-type" principles for U.S. multinationals in emerging economies. Introduction