Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

An Examination of the Judicial Peremptory Challenge: Variations between States and Considerations of Constitutionality
by McKinnon, Laurie, M.J.S., University of Nevada, Reno, 2016, 117; 10126112
Abstract (Summary)

Seventeen states allow for a judicial peremptory challenge of a trial judge. Seven of these states require that a new judge be assigned to the case without any showing of bias, prejudice or impartiality. The remaining ten states require some showing, primarily through an affidavit or certification, which meets requirements set forth by the statute or rule. Distinctions between the various challenge procedures were examined. State jurisprudence addressing the competing constitutional principles of maintaining a litigant’s right to a fair and impartial tribunal and the presumption of a trial judge’s impartiality was examined within the context of the doctrine of separation of powers, improper delegation of judicial power, and analogies to the peremptory strike of a juror. Having found no constitutional infirmities, except perhaps under circumstances unique to the evolution of a state’s particular rule or statute, the decision of whether to remove by a peremptory challenge a presumptively impartial judge should be left to the policy branch of government—the legislature.

Indexing (document details)
Advisor: Richardson, James T.
Commitee: Crothers, Daniel T., Dahir, Veronica, Johnstone, Anthony
School: University of Nevada, Reno
Department: Judicial Studies
School Location: United States -- Nevada
Source: MAI 55/05M(E), Masters Abstracts International
Subjects: Law, Political science
Keywords: Judicial disqualification, Judicial disqualification for cause, Judicial peremptory challenge, Judicial peremptory strikes, Removal of judge, Substitution of judge
Publication Number: 10126112
ISBN: 978-1-339-84170-0
Copyright © 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Policy