In Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81, the court faced the opposite sort of situation, where the trial court refused to excuse for cause a potential juror who was not qualified to serve under Witherspoon. As a result, the defendant was forced to use one of his peremptory challenges to excuse the juror, and eventually used all of them before the jury was selected. In reliance on Gray, and in particular on the passage quoted above, the defendant argued the composition of the jury might have been significantly different had he not been required to use a peremptory challenge to cure the trial court's error. The court agreed, but rejected "the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury." ( Id. at p. 88.) "We have long recognized that peremptory challenges are not of constitutional origin. They are a means to achieve the end of an impartial jury. So long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated." (Ibid.) The defendant in Ross argued the trial court's failure to excuse the challenged juror for cause also violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily depriving him of the full complement of peremptory challenges to which he was entitled under state law. He relied on the rule that "the denial or impairment of the right to peremptory challenges is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." ( Swain v. Alabama, supra, 380 U.S. at p. 219.) Again the court disagreed. "Even assuming that the Constitution were to impose this same rule in state criminal proceedings, petitioner's due process challenge would nonetheless fail. Because peremptory challenges are a creature of statute and are not required by the Constitution, it is for the State to determine the number of peremptory challenges allowed and to define their purpose and the manner of their exercise. As such, the 'right' to peremptory challenges is 'denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not receive that which state law provides." ( Ross v. Oklahoma, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 89.) The court concluded there was no due process violation because the defendant had been given all he was due under Oklahoma law. ( Id. at pp. 90-91.) The defendant exercised a peremptory challenge to cure the trial court's error in denying a challenge for cause. Ross, 487 U.S. at 83-84, 108 S. Ct. at 2275-76. The Supreme Court rejected the position that, without more, "the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury," and held that "so long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated." Ross, supra. The defendant further argued that forced use of a peremptory challenge to cure a trial court's error in denying a challenge for cause "arbitrarily deprived him of the full complement of ... peremptory challenges allowed under Oklahoma law." Id. at 487 U.S. at 88-89, 108 S. Ct. 2278. The Supreme Court also rejected this challenge, holding that the defendant did not lose any right conferred by state law when he used one of his nine challenges to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause. Because the defendant received all that state law allowed him, and the fair trial that the Federal Constitution guaranteed, the court rejected his due process challenge. Ross, 487 U.S. at 90-91, 108 S. Ct. at 2279-80.