Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
21. Which argument is most likely to result in a reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict?
The court seated a jury of 12 jurors and three alternates because the judge anticipated a lengthy trial and that some jurors might have to be excused because «things happen» over the course of months. Ultimately, the three alternate jurors were not seated. After the case was fully presented, the jurors deliberated. The verdict was for the corporation, and the court entered a judgment on the verdict. The business owner timely filed a notice of appeal.
During and after voir dire, the corporation's attorney exercised his three peremptory challenges to remove three Black male prospective jurors. The corporation's attorney feared those jurors would be biased in favor of the business owner because of their race. The business owner's attorney objected to the striking of the three Black jurors because of their race. The jury included two Hispanic people whose primary language was Spanish, although their command of English seemed to be adequate to the court and the lawyers.
In federal court, a small business owner sued a corporation for engaging in predatory pricing in violation of the antitrust laws. The business owner sought money damages for the harm to his business and loss of profits and timely requested a jury trial.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Here, the corporation's attorney removed three potential jurors solely on the basis of their race. Therefore, identifying that the corporation's attorney exercised peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner would result in the reversal of the judgment on the verdict.
A is incorrect. The Seventh Amendment applies to antitrust cases for money damages, so the court did not err in empaneling a jury.
C is incorrect. The mere fact that English was not the Hispanic jurors' first language is not sufficient to reverse the judgment because the business owner had the opportunity during voir dire to have had one or both of the Hispanic jurors removed for cause.
D is incorrect. While it was an error for the court to have appointed alternate jurors, nothing indicates that their appointment prejudiced the outcome. The alternate jurors were not seated and, as such, did not participate in the deliberations.