A party or the court may object to a peremptory challenge under California Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The objection ordinarily must be made before the jury is impaneled; further discussion takes place outside the panel’s presence. The party exercising the strike must state its actual reasons, and the judge applies the statute’s objective standard; the objecting party does not have to prove purposeful discrimination. (CCP § 231.7)
The statute covers strikes based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation, or perceived membership in a protected group. It applies to all those categories, not only race. California’s separate Racial Justice Act procedure may address broader case-wide claims, but it does not replace this immediate jury-selection objection. (CCP § 231.7(a), (d); Penal Code § 745)
Make and preserve the objection at the right time
Identify the challenged prospective juror and strike, and raise the objection before impanelment. The court must discuss it outside the panel’s presence. After the objection, the party who made the strike must state its reasons. The judge evaluates whether the circumstances create a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view protected-group membership as a factor in the strike. No purposeful-discrimination finding is required. (CCP § 231.7(b)–(d))
A late objection is permitted only if information supporting it could not reasonably have been known before the jury was impaneled. That limited provision is not a general cure for an objection that could have been made earlier. Make sure the objection, reasons, discussion, and ruling are on the record. (CCP § 231.7(b), (d))
What reasons need closer review?
The statute identifies explanations that are presumptively invalid, including a juror’s neighborhood, certain employment circumstances, or a reason that applies equally to an unchallenged juror outside the protected group. The party exercising the strike can rebut the presumption only through the statute’s clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. If the reason depends on demeanor, the judge must make the separate, specific confirmation and explanation required by subdivision (g). A reason that sounds neutral is not enough by itself: the judge must assess the stated reason under the full statutory standard. (CCP § 231.7(e)–(g))
Useful record details may include the juror’s answers, questions asked or not asked, how similar answers from other jurors were treated, and the actual reason given for the strike. The comparison should be grounded in the voir-dire record rather than assumptions about a juror’s background.
If the court sustains the objection
Section 231.7(h) requires a remedy if the objection is sustained. Available remedies include seating the challenged juror if that person remains available, quashing the jury venire, or declaring a mistrial. If the objecting party requests that the venire be quashed, the statute requires that remedy; a mistrial has its own statutory condition. The court must state its ruling and reasons on the record. (CCP § 231.7(d), (h))
Section 231.7 sets a specific trial procedure, distinct from an Evidence Code objection to admitted evidence. For a California criminal-trial question, the Law Offices of David S. Chesley can discuss the record and applicable procedure. Call (800) 755-5174.