CHALLENGE

challenge,n.1. An act or instance of formally questioning the legality or legal qualifications of a person, action, or thing <a challenge to the opposing party’s expert witness>. as-applied challenge.A claim that a law or governmental policy, though constitutional on its face, is unconstitutional as applied, usu. because of a discriminatory effect; a claim that a statute is unconstitutional on the facts of a particular case or in its application to a particular party. Batson challenge.Procedure. An objection that an opposing party has used a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. • It is named for Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986), a criminal case in which the prosecution struck potential jurors on the basis of race. The principle of Batson was extended in later Supreme Court cases to civil litigants (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077 (1991)) and to criminal defense attorneys (Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348 (1992)). The Court also applied it to peremptory challenges based on a juror’s sex (J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419 (1994)). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(b). [Cases: Constitutional Law  221(4); Jury  33(5.15). C.J.S. Juries §§ 443, 445–446, 450–456, 460.] constitutional challenge.A claim that a law or governmental action is unconstitutional.facial challenge.A claim that a statute is unconstitutional on its face — that is, that it always operates unconstitutionally.[Blacks Law 8th]

2. A party’s request that a judge disqualify a potential juror or an entire jury panel <the personal-injury plaintiff used his last challenge to disqualify a neurosurgeon>. — Also termed jury challenge.

causal challenge.See challenge for cause.

challenge for cause.A party’s challenge supported by a specified reason, such as bias or prejudice, that would disqualify that potential juror. — Also termed for-cause; causal challenge; general challenge; challenge to the poll. [Cases: Jury  83–108, 124. C.J.S. Juries §§ 225, 248, 367,

369–409, 415, 417–418, 420, 446.]

challenge propter affectum (prop-t<<schwa>>r <<schwa>>-fek-t<<schwa>>m). A challenge because some circumstance, such as kinship with a party, renders the potential juror incompetent to serve in the particular case.

challenge propter     defectum           (prop-t<<schwa>>r        d<<schwa>>-fek-t<<schwa>>m).            A challenge based on a claim that the juror is incompetent to serve on any jury for a reason such as alienage, infancy, or nonresidency.

challenge propter delictum (prop-t<<schwa>>r d<<schwa>>-lik-t<<schwa>>m). A challenge based on a claim that the potential juror has lost citizenship rights, as by being convicted of an infamous crime. See civil death (1) under DEATH.

challenge to the array.A legal challenge to the manner in which the entire jury panel was selected, usu. for a failure to follow prescribed procedures designed to produce impartial juries drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. • Such a challenge is either a principal challenge (if some defect renders the jury prima facie in-competent, as where the officer selecting veniremembers is related to the prosecutor or defendant) or a challenge for favor (as where the defect does not amount to grounds for a principal challenge, but there is a probability of partiality).

— Also termed challenge to the jury array. [Cases: Jury  114. C.J.S. Juries §§ 355, 359,

443–444.]

challenge to the favor.A challenge for cause that arises when facts and circumstances tend to show that a juror is biased but do not warrant the juror’s automatic disqualification. See challenge for cause.

challenge to the poll.See challenge for cause. general challenge.See challenge for cause.

peremptory challenge.One of a party’s limited number of challenges that do not need to be supported by a reason unless the opposing party makes a prima facie showing that the challenge was used to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. • At one time, a peremptory challenge could not be attacked and did not have to be ex-plained. But today if discrimination is charged, the party making the peremptory challenge must give a nondi-scriminatory reason for striking the juror. The court must consider several factors in deciding whether the proffered reason is merely a screen for illegal discrimination. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986). — Often shortened to peremptory. — Also termed peremptory strike. See STRIKE(2); Batson challenge under CHALLENGE(1). [Cases: Jury  33(5.15), 134. C.J.S. Juries §§ 344, 421,

423–424, 439, 442–443, 445–446, 450–456, 460.]

principal challenge.A for-cause challenge that arises when facts and circumstances support a conclusive pre-sumption of a juror’s bias, resulting in automatic disqualification. See challenge for cause.

3.Military law. An objection to a member of the court serving in a court-martial case. • A military judge can be challenged only for cause. [Cases: Armed Services  47(4); Military Justice 884, 889. C.J.S. Armed Services § 178; Military Justice §§ 138–139, 151–152, 154–155, 345,347.]

challenge,vb.1. To dispute or call into question <the columnist challenged the wisdom of the

court’s ruling>.

challenge the vote.See DIVIDE THE ASSEMBLY.

2. To formally object to the legality or legal qualifications of <the defendant challenged the person’s eligibility for jury service>.