Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the civil context as in a criminal trial. Whether in a civil or criminal proceeding, “[vjoir dire permits a party to establish a relation, if not a bond of trust, with the jurors,” a relation that “continues throughout the entire trial.” Id., at 413. Exclusion of a juror on the basis of race severs that relation in an invidious way. We believe the only issue that warrants further consideration in this case is whether a civil litigant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in challenging the exclusion of jurors on account of race. In Powers, we held: “The discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution causes a criminal defendant cognizable injury, and the defendant has a concrete interest in challenging the practice. See Allen v. Hardy, 478 U. S. [255,] 259 [(1986)] (<HOLDING>). This is not because the individual jurors 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation (B) holding that it is in the interest of both parents and children that parents have ultimate authority to make medical decisions for their children unless neutral fact finder determines through due process hearing that parent is not acting in childs best interests (C) recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs (D) recognizing a defendants interest in neutral jury selection procedures (E) recognizing the public interest exception
Output (English): holding that it is in the interest of both parents and children that parents have ultimate authority to make medical decisions for their children unless neutral fact finder determines through due process hearing that parent is not acting in childs best interests