Which statement about peremptory challenges is true?

• A. They must be grounded in evidence.
• B. They can be based on race or gender.
• C. They do not need a reason but cannot be based on race or gender.
• D. They apply only to alternate jurors.

Answer: (C)

Peremptory challenges let each side remove potential jurors without giving a reason. The key guardrail is that while you don’t have to justify the strike, you cannot use it to exclude someone because of race or gender. That combination is why this statement is true: it captures the no-reason aspect of peremptory challenges and the prohibition on discriminatory use. In practice, if a party believes a strike is racially or gender-based, courts apply Batson-type rules to require a neutral justification and, if discrimination is shown, the strike can be set aside and a replacement juror may be chosen. The other ideas don’t fit because peremptory challenges aren’t required to be grounded in evidence, they’re not limited to alternates, and they can’t be used to target jurors for protected characteristics.