[Organic Panic]

I thought it was defense’s prerogative to dismiss any juror. Outrageous this radical marxist is refusing to “allow” Trump’s team to dismiss people.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Apparently you are only allowed to dismiss a certain number of jurors

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I thought it was defense’s prerogative to dismiss any juror.

The prosecutor and defense have a number of "strikes" to dismiss jurors. I think in this case, each side gets 20. But after each strike, that side has one less to use. They may not have proceeded to them "strike" phase yet.

Roger Stone's team did not discover a leftist in the jury pool, and that character became the jury foreman. Stone was convicted and Trump pardoned him.

[Labyrinthos]

Each side has three pre-emptory challenges, which they can use for any reason without disclosing the reason, to dismiss a juror. Each side has an unlimited number of challenges for cause, which requires “good cause” to dismiss the juror, such as a personal relationship with the judge, an attorney, prosecutor, defendant, or witness; objective bias; disability, etc.

[markman46]

Both get a challenge

[Bikkuri]

I think they are limited on how many they can refuse..

[HamiltonJay]

No each side can refuse a certain number of jurors for any reason, but that number is not unlimited.

[shalom aleichem]

Defense only gets so many peremptory challenges (for no cause), but this was a challenge for cause (such as juror exhibited bias). Judge said no, and thus defense must use a precious peremptory to get them off. The judge should have granted a change of venue, but of course he is biased (Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland).