The process of selecting a jury in the United States accords attorneys with options of excluding able

jurors. An option that challenges for cause where the attorneys ought to define the reason for a challenge.

This could be in the form of bias or conflict of interest. In such a case, the opposing person is given the

opportunity to respond and the judge decides on the juror’s exclusion. Another option is a peremptory

challenge. This option gives the attorneys the power of excluding jurors with no explanation for it.

Considering that challenges for cause are unrestricted, attorneys are barred on the number of peremptory

challenges. The number may go as low as 4, though 10 is the most common in felony cases.

Attorneys have in the past been known to exclude jurors of undesirable potential, though they have not

been as effective. Most of the efforts applied in the past were with regard to lawyers’ folklore of who can

be a good juror. For instance, a jury consultant assisted in the selection of the jury in the case of O.J.

Simpson. Criminologist Jo-Ellan Dimitrius made use of surveys to form his defense juror demographic

who were balck women. He then assessed and judged the potential jurors’ response as based on a

questionnaire and response and read their body language.

Considering the several criticisms that thrown at scientific jury selection, about it allows lawyers stack

juries and destroys the influence brought about by money, a number of changes have been proposed. One

of the proposed changes is the removal of peremptory challenges. The Supreme Court for instance does

not allow the use of peremptories to exclude jurors with regard to their colour or gender. Those

supporting argue that the removal of peremptories generally will do away with perceived and injustice of

allowing lawyers to exclude