SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXERCISING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES DURING JURY SELECTION

• US 20110131053A1
• Filed: 01/21/2011
• Published: 06/02/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 10/28/2005
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: John Jerry Glas, Leon J. Reymond III
• Original Assignee: John Jerry Glas, Leon J. Reymond III
• Inventors: REYMOND, Leon J. III, GLAS, John Jerry
• Application Number:
  US13/011,212
• Publication Number:
  US 20110131053A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/1.1
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/063 Operations research, analysis or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 99/00 Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass

Abstract

A system and method is provided for determining whether an attorney should exercise a peremptory challenge to excuse a prospective juror based on, for example: (1) the location of the juror in the selection order; (2) the rank or score assigned to each potential peremptory challenge; (3) the jurors identified as potential challenges for cause; (4) the probability of dismissal assigned to each potential challenge for cause; (5) the number of jurors needed to serve on the jury; (6) the number of peremptory challenges allowed by the court; (7) the number of jurors in the panel; and (8) the jurors who have already been selected, dismissed for cause, or peremptorily challenged.

Claims

1. A method for exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection at a jury trial, comprising:

determining the rules governing jury selection for the trial;

evaluating the prospective jurors;

evaluating the probability of dismissal for each prospective juror;

determining the maximum number of selection decisions;

determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets;

selecting at least one of the mathematical juror sets;

ranking the jurors within each selected mathematical juror set;

determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel; and

recommending which prospective jurors should be peremptorily challenged.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising creating a trial data bank.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the rules governing jury selection comprises entering the number of jurors who will be selected to serve on the jury, the number of alternate jurors, and the number of peremptory challenges allowed by the court.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of evaluating the prospective jurors comprises recording a score for each prospective juror that indicates the relative desirability of the prospective juror.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of evaluating the probability of dismissal comprises recording the probability, denoted as a number, that each prospective juror will be dismissed for cause by the court.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the maximum number of selection decisions comprises adding the number of jurors who will be selected to serve on the jury and the total number of peremptory challenges allowed by the court to be exercised by the parties.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein, before the step of determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets, the method further comprises determining the last actual juror.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein, before the step of determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets, the method further comprises determining the last possible juror.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein, before the step of determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets, the method further comprises determining the last likely juror.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets comprises determining the mathematically certain jurors.

11. The method of claim 10, wherein the step of determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets further comprises determining the mathematically possible jurors.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the step of determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets further comprises determining the mathematically likely jurors.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of ranking the jurors within each selected mathematical juror set further comprising ranking the prospective jurors within each selected mathematical set from the least desirable to the least undesirable based upon the score previously recorded by the attorney in the step of evaluating the prospective jurors and a weighted average of the score determined in the step of evaluating the prospective jurors and the probability of dismissal determined in the step of evaluating the probability of dismissal for each prospective juror.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel further comprising determining the percentage of peremptory challenges that would be equal to the percentage of eligible jurors in the panel assuming no additional prospective jurors are dismissed for cause in the panel.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein the step of determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel further comprising determining the lowest possible percentage of mathematically eligible jurors in the panel.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the step of determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel further comprising determining the expected percentage of mathematically eligible jurors in the panel.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the step of determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel further comprising determining the percentage of jurors already selected.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the step of determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel further comprising determining the percentage of peremptory challenges already exercised by opposing counsel.

19. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of recommending which prospective jurors should be peremptorily challenged further comprising recommending that a prospective juror be peremptorily challenged when the ranking of that juror within the selected mathematical juror set is less than or equal to the number of remaining peremptory challenges designated for the panel.

20. The method of claim 1, further comprising of notifying when a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination exists in the exercise of peremptory challenges.

21. The method of claim 20, where the step of notifying further comprises providing statistical information that indicates the prima facie case.

22. The method of claim 1, further comprising utilizing one or more peremptory equations to determine the number of peremptory challenges to use in cutting jurors in the panel.

23. A method for exercising peremptory challenges to prospective jurors during jury selection at a jury trial comprising:

entering the number of principal jurors to be seated in the jury panel at trial, the number of alternate jurors required for the trial, and the number of peremptory challenges available for each of the parties to the trial;

entering the selection order of the prospective jurors;

entering an evaluation of the prospective jurors;

determining the probability of dismissal and the probability of survival of a challenge for cause of one or more of the prospective jurors;

determining the maximum number of times that a prospective juror will be selected or peremptorily challenged;

determining the last actual juror, the last likely juror, and the last possible juror;

determining the set of mathematically certain jurors, the set of mathematically likely jurors, and the set of mathematically possible jurors;

selecting at least one of the mathematical juror sets;

determining the rank of the prospective jurors within each selected mathematical set from the least desirable to the least undesirable;

utilizing the peremptory equations to determine the number of peremptory challenges to use in cutting jurors in the panel; and

indicating that a peremptory challenge should be exercised if the ranking of that juror within the selected mathematical juror set is less than or equal to the number of remaining peremptory challenges designated for the panel.

24. The method of claim 23, further comprising creating a database containing information gathered on the prospective jurors.

25. The method of claim 24, further comprising using the database to compile statistics regarding the behavior of jurors that may be of assistance in forming opinions about which jurors are desirable or undesirable for service on a particular jury.

26. An information carrier medium that communicates software to a computer, wherein the software when executed assists in exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection comprising:

determining the rules governing jury selection for the trial;

evaluating the prospective jurors;

evaluating the probability of dismissal for each prospective juror;

determining the maximum number of selection decisions;

determining a plurality of mathematical juror sets;

selecting at least one of the mathematical juror sets;

ranking the jurors within each selected mathematical juror set;

determining the number of peremptory challenges to use for each panel; and

recommending which prospective jurors should be peremptorily challenged.

27. The information carrier medium in claim 26, further comprising indicating that a peremptory challenge should be exercised when the ranking of that juror within the selected mathematical juror set is less than or equal to the number of remaining peremptory challenges designated for the panel.