Yes, the peremptory challenge damage the fairness of the jury system. The peremptory challenges have been used to exclude members of minority groups, particularly African Americans, from juries in criminal cases, particularly in death penalty cases.
What is the peremptory challenge?The peremptory challenge was known as a tool in jury selection that enables lawyers to excuse jurors without a reason for doing so..
The use of peremptory challenges has been criticized as damaging to the fairness of the jury system, based on the fact that it can result in the exclusion of jurors based on racial, ethnic, or other biases, rather than on their qualifications or ability to be impartial.
Therefore yes the peremptory challenge damage the fairness of the jury system.
Learn more about peremptory challenge here:https://brainly.com/question/30362467
#SPJ1
which of the following sanctions are awarded with the objective of ensuring that a party be in as good a position as he or she would have been in had the contract been performed? question 20 options: compensatory damages exemplary damages punitive damages liquidation damages incidental damages
In order to put a party in the same position that they would have been in also had contract been completed, compensatory damages sanctions were given.
General Damages, often referred to as Ordinary Damages, are the harms that a contract violation will inevitably result in. In order to put a party in the same position that they would have been in also had contract been completed, compensatory damages sanctions were given. These losses are limited to immediate effects brought on by unforeseeable events. Damages that result from specific circumstances and contract violations are known as special damages. Whenever the contract is signed, the damages are pre-estimated and specified in advance and are paid out in the event of a contract breach.
Learn more about sanction
https://brainly.com/question/29547541
#SPJ4
question during the investigation of a large gambling operation, the police obtained a warrant to search a bookie's home based on the affidavit of an informant. the informant was a rival bookie who had never acted as an informant before, and much of the substance of the rival's information came from third-party sources. during the search, the police seized a variety of gambling evidence, including betting slips and a check from the defendant. the bookie and the defendant were arrested for violating the state's gambling laws, and separate trials were ordered. at a suppression hearing for the bookie, the court held that the search warrant for the bookie's home was not supported by probable cause and suppressed introduction of the evidence seized. the defendant moved to suppress introduction of the betting slips and the check on the same basis. if the court agrees that the search warrant of the bookie's home was not supported by probable cause, should the defendant's motion be granted?
Yes, the defendant's motion should be granted. Since the search warrant for the bookie's home was not supported by probable cause, the evidence seized during the search is inadmissible.
The defendant submitted a motion to suppress the evidence, contending that LASD's initial search of his residence infringed on his Fourth Amendment rights because LASD's assistance in the execution of the inspection warrant served as justification for carrying out a criminal search, making an arrest, and opening an investigation. Therefore, "Yes" is the response to the issue of whether police can search your home without a warrant. Only very seldom, without a warrant, may the police enter your private home or place of business. He contended that because the following criminal search warrant was issued as a direct result of the initial illegal search, all evidence seized and the results of that search should be removed from use at the trial.
To know more about illegal refer :
brainly.com/question/30451144
#SPJ4
T/F the supreme court has no role in constitutional revision.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: Supreme Court has a pretty key role in Constitutional Revision. They have the power of judicial review, in which they are charged with interpretation of the Constitution.