Connecticut § 27-183 Challenges.

Connecticut Statutes

§ 27-183 — Challenges.

Connecticut § 27-183

Title 27Armed Forces and Veterans

Ch. 507Connecticut Code of Military Justice

This text of Connecticut § 27-183 (Challenges.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 27-183 (2026).

Text

(a)The military judge and members of a general or special court-martial may be challenged by the accused or the trial counsel for cause stated to the court. The military judge, or if none, the court, shall determine the relevancy and validity of challenges for cause, and shall not receive a challenge to more than one person at a time. Challenges by the trial counsel shall ordinarily be presented and decided before those by the accused are offered.

(b)Each accused and the trial counsel is entitled to one peremptory challenge, but the military judge shall not be challenged except for cause.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a) The military judge and members of a general or special court-martial may be challenged by the accused or the trial counsel for cause stated to the court. The military judge, or if none, the court, shall determine the relevancy and validity of challenges for cause, and shall not receive a challenge to more than one person at a time. Challenges by the trial counsel shall ordinarily be presented and decided before those by the accused are offered. (b) Each accused and the trial counsel is entitled to one peremptory challenge, but the military judge shall not be challenged except for cause.

Legislative History

(1967, P.A. 717, S. 43; P.A. 77-295, S. 5.) History: P.A. 77-295 provided for challenges of the military judge and members of a general or special court-martial, further provided for the military judge or, if none, the court to make the determinations on challenges and substituted “military judge” for “law officer”.