Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
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.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
They just serve 6-year terms, can’t really explain that.
