Jury is an important organization and institutional basis of American litigation, which embodies the characteristics of American litigation system. In the eyes of ordinary people and even judges, the most attractive part of the jury system lies in the participation of the people, which is considered as a symbol of the democratization of the rule of law in the United States. The jury selection process is quite complicated. First, the assistant judge randomly selected the list of candidates from the local voter registration manual. The judge decides the number of candidate jurors according to the circumstances of the case. The selection is conducted in public, the judges and lawyers of both parties are present at the court site, and the candidate jurors are seated according to the number determined by lot. Screening is conducted by asking questions, and lawyers of both sides play an absolute leading role in selecting candidate jurors. They have the absolute right to ask the candidate jurors to withdraw without giving reasons. As for how many times a case can use this right, it should be determined according to the importance of the case and the specific provisions of each jurisdiction. For example, in a theft case, it is also common for both lawyers to use this right five or six times to eliminate the candidate jurors they don't want to stay. It is worth noting that the eliminated candidate jurors are not those who are too extreme or biased to get a fair trial. It can also be eliminated by certain "avoidance reasons". Generally speaking, other reasons can be avoided except racial discrimination. American law not only gives both the prosecution and the defense the absolute right to question, but also gives them the right to question with reason. Compared with the absolute right of questioning, it is an arbitrary right of questioning, and the law does not limit the number of times this right can be raised. It can be seen that the best way for lawyers of both sides to influence the jury composition is to use the right of absolute withdrawal, so they are more inclined to obtain information about the right of absolute withdrawal and decide to ask for absolute withdrawal according to this information. You can get this opportunity by asking questions to the candidate jurors in the process of selecting jurors. Sometimes, in order to speed up this process, candidate jurors need to answer written questionnaires first. Questionnaires generally involve personal occupation, identity, newspapers and magazines read, religion and political beliefs. Rich defendants may also hire senior sociologists as consultants, inquire about the files of candidate jurors, do community research, make statistical analysis from gender, race, age, religion and other aspects, and help trial lawyers choose the jurors who are most beneficial to the defense. Sometimes, a consultant who studies psychology may sit in court and judge which jurors should be kept and which should be eliminated from the body language and speaking style of the candidates. The right of absolute withdrawal means that after careful use of this right, if the number of candidates for a certain type of jurors is small, that is, the number of candidates who use the right of absolute withdrawal is not exceeded, the prosecution lawyer or defense lawyer can exclude all such people from the jury. For example, in a complicated criminal fraud case, the defense lawyer may exclude all those who are highly educated or familiar with official documents from the jury. For drug-related cases, the prosecution lawyer may exclude all young people from the jury. If the use of absolute questioning right is based on racial reasons, it will cause no small social problems in the United States. In the case of white police beating black people, when the defense lawyer used the right of absolute withdrawal to exclude almost all black people from the jury, it caused quite a social uproar. It has been pointed out that lawyers of both sides can find all kinds of reasons to use the right of challenge except for reasons based on race. Although the judge has the right to decide whether to approve this right of withdrawal, it is difficult for the judge to know whether the jurors awaiting trial are excluded because of race or other reasons, because both lawyers can find various reasons other than race to cover up their reasons based on race. In 1986, the Supreme Court took the case of batson v. Kentucky as an example. In this black defendant case, the prosecution lawyer ruled out all black candidate jurors. At that time, the Supreme Court tried to prevent prosecution lawyers from using race-based recusal requests, but failed, and batson was finally convicted. Not only the court of first instance attaches great importance to the selection of jurors, but also the court of appeal. Once there are some mistakes in the process of selecting jurors, the case must be retried, and at this time, no matter how sufficient and conclusive the evidence is, no matter how fair the defendant is, it will be of no help. For example, the retrial of Dorcheney's appeal case is due to the insufficient use of the absolute questioning right of defense lawyers. Anne Gunny's appeal was retried because the trial judge wrongly denied the defense lawyer's absolute right to withdraw the lawsuit. (Author: Beijing Railway Transport Court)