Certified Fraud Examiner Practice Exam 2025 – All-in-One Guide to Master Your Certification!

A peremptory challenge allows attorneys to reject a prospective juror without having to provide a reason, but the use of this challenge is limited by certain legal standards to prevent discrimination. It is particularly impermissible to exercise a peremptory challenge based on race. This principle stems from landmark cases, including Batson v. Kentucky, which established that such discrimination undermines the fairness of the judicial process and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

In contrast, exercising a peremptory challenge based on professional background, neutrality in previous cases, or non-ethnic gender does not violate the established legal standards. These factors can be associated with an attorney's strategic assessment of how a juror might fit into the overall jury composition and how they may contribute to the trial's outcome.

Thus, challenges based on professional background, previous case neutrality, and gender (if not tied to ethnic considerations) are permissible grounds for a peremptory challenge, while race explicitly is not. This distinction is crucial within the framework of maintaining equity in jury selections.