Thaddeus Donald Edmonson a construction worker was injured in a job site accident. Edmonson sued Leesville Concrete Company for negligence claiming that a Leesvile employee permitted one of the company's trucks to roll backward and pin him against some construction equipment. Edmonson invoked his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. During voir dire, Leesville used two of three peremptory challenges to remove black persons from the prospective jury. As impaneled the jury included 11 white persons and 1 black person. The jury rendered a verdict for Edmonson assessing his total damages at $90000. It also attributed 80% of the fault to Edmonson's contributory negligence however and awarded him the sum of $18000. The US Supreme Court ruled on a case involving peremptory challenges on the basis of race. First who was their decision meant to protect the jury members who were removed or the litigating parties? If race or gender cannot be used to excuse jurors by exercising a peremptory challenge, give an example of when one party (plaintiff or defencant) may want to remove a juror without explanation