Share
Explore BrainMass

business law

The state of Alabama, on behalf of a mother (T.B.), brought a paternity suit against the alleged father (J.E.B.) of T.B.'s child. During jury selection, the state, through peremptory challenges, removed nine of the ten prospective male jurors. J.E.B.'s attorney struck the final male from the jury pool. As a result of these peremptory strikes, the final jury consisted of twelve women. When the jury returned a verdict in favor of the mother, the father appealed. The father argued that eliminating men from the jury constituted gender discrimination and violated his rights to equal protection and due process. The father requested the court to extend the principle enunciated in Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibited peremptory strikes based solely on race, to include gender-based strikes. The appellate court refused to do so.

1. Do you agree with J.E.B. that the state's exercise of its peremptory challenges violated his right to equal protection and due process? Why or why not?

2. If you were the judge, how would you rule?

3. The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall urged, when the Court was reviewing the Batson case, that peremptory challenges be banned entirely. Do you agree with this proposal? Discuss.

Solution Preview

1. Do you agree with J.E.B. that the state's exercise of its peremptory challenges violated his right to equal protection and due process? Why or why not?
I agree with J.E. B that the state's exercise of peremptory challenges violates his right to equal protection and due process. The case that has been quoted is Batson v. Kentucky. In this case there were two points established. First, a State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded. Similarly, in this case the State denies a male defendant equal ...

Solution Summary

This solution gives you a detailed discussion on business law

$2.19