Jury selection proceeds differently in each state. Though not constitutionally mandated, each jurisdiction allows attorneys to exercise peremptory challenges as part of the process. During the past sixty years, members of the legal profession have consistently called into question the validity of this practice. Supreme Court jurisprudence gives selected groups protection from the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. As a result of the increasing confusion regarding the appropriate standard to apply to peremptory challenges, many states, most recently Minnesota, have proposed reforms to the use of challenges in the jury selection process. This Note analyzes various proposals for reform of the jury selection process using the recent Minnesota proposals as a case study. It argues for the elimination of peremptory challenges and calls for a uniform national practice.
Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte
EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit. Although the case presented many serious [...]
Revisiting Water Bankruptcy
REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]
Defying Auer Deference
DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]