A peremptory challenge results in the exclusion of a potential juror without the need for any reason or explanation – unless the opposing party presents a prima facie argument that this challenge was used to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.

The danger that a judge may be prejudiced against a particular party for whatever reason has caused the legislature of California to allow each party a right to challenge a judge assigned to a case for any or no reason…a peremptory challenge similar to those granted to parties when selecting a jury.

Local Rules for Timing of Challenge A section 170.6 challenge to a direct calendar judge assigned to a case for all purposes must be made for a civil case within 15 days of the party’s notice of the all-purpose assignment or, if the party has not yet appeared, within 15 days of the party’s first appearance.

six
California currently permits a party in a civil case six (6) peremptory challenges, and 10 in non-capital criminal cases.

They’re an invitation to discrimination. Nevertheless, some defence lawyers have argued that abolition will make juries less diverse. This ignores the inconvenient fact that the defence team’s use of peremptory challenges produced an all-white jury in the Gerald Stanley-Colten Boushie case.

Indeed, it is often said that everything may be reviewed on appeal, but as in almost every aspect of law, there is an exception: In California, a trial judge’s refusal to be recused by way of a peremptory challenge is reviewable only by writ.

Once a peremptory challenge is made, the judge cannot oppose it. As long as the challenge is made in a timely manner, the judge immediately loses jurisdiction over the case. This means any action that he makes in the case shall be considered “void.”

In addition to challenges for cause, each lawyer has a specific number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential juror without stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a juror because of a belief that the juror will not serve the best interests of the client.

In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason.

The rationale behind allowing peremptory challenges is to give the attorneys an opportunity to seat the best jury for each case. Since each side will reject the jurors that they presume will favor the other side, the result should be a well-balanced jury.

Peremptory Challenges to a Judge in California The danger that a judge may be prejudiced against a particular party for whatever reason has caused the legislature of California to allow each party a right to challenge a judge assigned to a case for any or no reason…a peremptory challenge similar to those granted to parties when selecting a jury.

California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 170.6 gives you challenge, you still have the right the right to disqualify him or her without having to show a to challenge the judge for cause reason. This is called a peremptory challenge. under CCP § 170.1.

A CCP §170.6 challenge must be timely. ( Grant v. Sup. Ct. (Jacobs) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 518, 527) The general rule is that “disqualification of the judge is permitted any time prior to the commencement of trial.”

It may not be made after the hearing or trial commences. There are specific deadlines and strict timeframes in which the challenge must be made, depending on your court’s calendaring system (see chart). Improper timing is the number one reason that challenges are rejected.