You don’t really have the necessary proof the convict or act upon the situation
A peremptory challenge is used by attorneys in the jury selection process to excuse potential jurors without providing a reason why. In this lesson you will learn about the use of peremptory strikes, as well as the laws designed to protect the integrity of the process.
While the process of selecting jurors may be too boring to be featured in popular T.V. crime dramas, any seasoned trial attorney will tell you that a trial can be lost or won in jury selection. So, what exactly makes the process so important? And how do attorneys pick the 'best' jury for each case?
The jury selection process, also know as 'voir dire', involves attorneys from each side taking turns picking the jurors they believe will favor their position over their opponent's. The term peremptory challenge refers to the practice of excusing potential jurors without providing a reason why. Jurors may also be excluded because the attorneys and the judge believe that the juror, for whatever reason, can't be fair. This is called a 'for cause' challenge.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
True
Idk what else to say so there you go
