Challenges for cause arise during voir dire when an attorney identifies a juror whose responses reveal actual or implied bias. The attorney must articulate the specific basis for the challenge and persuade the judge that the juror cannot fulfill their duty of impartiality. Judges may attempt to rehabilitate the juror by asking whether they can set aside their views and follow the law. If the juror assures impartiality, the judge may deny the challenge, often frustrating the requesting attorney. Denial of a valid challenge for cause can be reversible error on appeal.
Attorney: "Your Honor, I challenge Juror Number 4 for cause. She stated that her brother is a police officer and that she would always believe a police officer's testimony over a civilian's." Judge: "Ma'am, can you set that aside and evaluate each witness's credibility equally?" Juror: "I'll try, but honestly I don't think so." Judge: "The challenge is granted."
Attorney: "Your Honor, Juror Number 11 indicated he has already formed an opinion about this case from media coverage and cannot presume innocence." Judge: "Challenge for cause is sustained. Juror Number 11, you are excused with our thanks."
Attorney: "We challenge for cause, Your Honor. This juror is a shareholder of the defendant corporation." Judge: "Granted."
A common error is assuming that any expressed opinion disqualifies a juror. Judges often attempt to rehabilitate jurors, and a juror who acknowledges prior awareness but affirms they can be impartial will typically survive a challenge for cause.
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Limited the removal of jurors for cause in capital cases to those whose opposition to the death penalty would substantially impair their ability to follow the law.
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985)
Relaxed the Witherspoon standard, allowing removal for cause when a juror's views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties.
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000)
Held that a defendant who uses a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause does not automatically receive an additional peremptory challenge.
What are valid grounds for a challenge for cause?
Valid grounds include demonstrated bias toward a party, personal relationship with a party or witness, financial interest in the outcome, inability to follow the law as instructed, pre-formed opinions about guilt or liability, and statutory disqualifications such as felony convictions or non-citizenship.
Is there a limit to how many challenges for cause can be made?
No. Unlike peremptory challenges, there is no numerical limit on challenges for cause. A party may challenge as many jurors as necessary, provided each challenge is supported by specific grounds. However, the judge decides each challenge, and frivolous challenges will be denied.
What happens if a challenge for cause is denied?
If the judge denies a challenge for cause, the party must either accept the juror or use a peremptory challenge to remove them. If the party exhausts all peremptory challenges and is forced to accept a biased juror, this can be grounds for appeal — but only if the appellate court agrees the challenge should have been granted.
A peremptory challenge is the right of a party to reject a prospective juror during voir dire withou...
Voir dire questions are the inquiries posed to prospective jurors during jury selection to uncover p...
Voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors are questioned to determine their qualification...
