"The U.S. Supreme Court made a wise decision in J.E.B V. Alabama."
             I agree with the ruling of the supreme court because jurors shouldn't be discriminated against by their race let alone their gender. In J.E.B v. Alabama this man clearly didn't get a far trial due to the attorneys use of peremptory challenges. If the highest court of the land had a 6-3 vote showing this jury didn't serve justice then obviously peremptory challenges don't benefit neither the plaintiff or defendant. The petitioner argued that is fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause had been violated because he didn't ave a fair jury. The attorneys used peremptory challenges to exclude all male jurors so obviously the petitioner's jury was a it bias due to the fact most females aren't sympathetic to men who don't pay child's support. I'm quite glad ,honestly, that the supreme court realized that attorneys used their peremptory challenges to discriminate against genders. Some attorneys fail to realize that It is not at all okay to remove jurors based on gender so they can have an advantage in the trial. If its not acceptable to remove jurors to have an all same race jury, why do they feel its its admissible to remove people to have a same gender jury?
             It stated that out of a pool of thirty-three potential jurors, ten males were excused because of peremptory challenges. An all female jury was th result of some attorneys attempt to get their client an edge over the defendant. I believe their was a direct correlation between the verdict and the all female jury. I find it hard to believe that this attorney used his peremptory challenges not looking for an advantage in the trial. Thats exactly it, the attorneys use their challenges to discriminate against gender in hope of a trial and verdict in their favor. J.E.B felt his jury exclusion of males was a direct violation of the fourteenth amendment because he didn't get a fair jury that represented his ...