challenge for cause

Challenges for cause are becoming critical, but difficult to get.

Anyone who does not qualify under these terms are subject to challenge for cause.

Each side has an unlimited number of challenges for cause.

In some jurisdictions, attorneys also have the right to make a challenge for cause argument to the judge.

Therefore, though it exists, the right to challenge for cause during jury selection cannot be employed much.

In criminal cases, each defendant was entitled to a maximum of twelve peremptory challenges; however, the prosecution could only allowed to challenge for cause.

The peremptory challenge, he believed, was largely ended and replaced with something very similar to challenge for cause:

Either prosecution or defence can "challenge for cause" as many individual jurors as they wish on the grounds that the juror is:

Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.

Depending on the jurisdiction, attorneys may have an opportunity to mount a challenge for cause argument or use one of a limited number of peremptory challenges.

Each side receives three peremptory challenges, which may not be exercised in a racially or sexually discriminative manner, along with an unlimited number of challenges for cause.

While challenges for cause are unlimited, attorneys have a limited number of peremptory challenges, sometimes as few as four, although 10 is more common in non-capital felony cases.

"This is the 10th black juror in a row challenged for cause," complained Robert C. Baker, Mr. Simpson's lawyer, in a particularly sharp exchange Wednesday.

At voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause.

Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.

The jury pool was then polled through a "challenge for cause" procedure to determine if a potential juror had been influenced by extensive media coverage prior to the publication bans taking effect.

It is from a pool of some 50 prospective jurors that lawyers for each side, who are allowed to challenge for cause in the current winnowing process, will be permitted peremptory challenges.

There is a distinction between challenges for cause (a clear bias or reason for a juror not to be acceptable) and a peremptory challenge, for which no reason need be given.

Most important, if peremptory challenges were abolished, the only way to remove potential jurors who are biased would be challenges for cause, that is, when the judge determines that the person is biased.

He told her that she should not write "challenge for cause" every time the phrase is uttered in court; she should instead, with one quick, quiet stroke on her stenograph machine, write "chauze."

Proponents argue that doing away with peremptories altogether will eliminate the perceived and real injustice of permitting lawyers to eliminate jurors dispositionally unfavorable to them without a challenge for cause argument in open court.

State law usually gives the two sides a set number of peremptory challenges, in contrast to challenges for cause, by which any number of jurors can be removed for expressions of bias or similar reasons.

Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause: i.e. by giving a reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.

Thirty-six of these potential jurors survived challenges for cause; five of the thirty-six were African American; and all five of the prospective black jurors were eliminated by the prosecution through the use of peremptory strikes.

The first option is a challenge for cause, in which attorneys must state the reason for a challenge (such as clear bias or a conflict of interest), the opposing party is allowed to respond, and the judge decides whether to exclude the juror.