Your Honor, in the case of State v. Waldman the Court has not ruled in error with respect to the Voir Dire. With respect to peremptory challenges and proper objections, the Court has fully complied with defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights with respect to trial by impartial, indifferent jurors. Both defense and Mr. Waldman were granted their full number of peremptory challenges and cause. During the Voir Dire process, the defendant and defense objected to the prosecution’s peremptory challenges, objections that were properly overruled by the Court. The peremptory challenge to Eugene Franklyn was valid under Voir Dire due process. During Voir Dire, prosecution fully discussed the incident in which the defendant was allegedly involved. At no time did the prosecution overstep due process or the rights of the defendant in executing its right to peremptory challenges. The essential nature of the peremptory challenge is that it is one exercised without a reason stated, without inquiry and without being subject to the Court’s control. Therefore, prosecution had every right to exercise its peremptory option with respect to potential jurors Eugene Franklyn, Deidre Sheldon, and Thelma Louise Friedan-Gilligan.
In Florida a peremptory challenge is presumed valid unless an objection is made that the challenge is being made in a discriminatory basis. State v. Johans, 613 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1993). No such objection was made here. There is no requirement in Florida that a basis for a peremptory challenge be proven. The peremptory challenge is a legal right long recognized by Florida law as a means of giving both sides some choice in the make-up of a jury. Jurors should clearly understand that being eliminated from the jury panel by a peremptory challenge is no reflection upon their ability or integrity. However, without proof of discrimination being the cause of peremptory challenge, defendant has no right to object to the pros
...