Legal Definitions - causal challenge

A causal challenge, more commonly referred to as a challenge for cause, is a formal request made by an attorney during the jury selection process (known as voir dire) to a judge. The attorney asks the judge to remove a potential juror from the jury pool because there is a specific, legally recognized reason (a "cause") to believe that the individual cannot be fair and impartial in the upcoming trial. Unlike a "peremptory challenge," which allows an attorney to remove a juror without stating a reason (within certain legal limits), a causal challenge requires the attorney to articulate a valid, objective basis demonstrating why the potential juror's impartiality is compromised. The judge then evaluates the stated cause and decides whether to grant or deny the challenge.

• Example 1: Family Connection to a Party

  During jury selection for a civil lawsuit involving a car accident, a potential juror reveals that their sibling is employed as a paralegal at the law firm representing the plaintiff. The defense attorney could make a causal challenge, arguing that this close family connection creates a reasonable doubt about the potential juror's ability to remain impartial and decide the case solely on the evidence presented in court.

  Explanation: The family relationship provides a specific "cause" for potential bias, as the juror might consciously or unconsciously favor the side with which their sibling is associated. The challenge is based on this identifiable reason rather than a general feeling or hunch.

• Example 2: Strong Pre-Existing Opinion on the Case Type

  In a criminal trial for embezzlement, a potential juror states during questioning that they have personally been a victim of financial fraud in the past and believe that anyone accused of such a crime is inherently guilty until proven innocent beyond any doubt, regardless of the specific evidence. The defense attorney would likely issue a causal challenge.

  Explanation: The juror's strong, pre-existing personal experience and stated belief about the nature of the crime create a "cause" for concern regarding their impartiality. Their inability to presume innocence or objectively weigh the evidence, as required by law, is a specific reason for their removal.

• Example 3: Direct Financial Interest in the Outcome

  A major pharmaceutical company is being sued for product liability. During jury selection, a potential juror discloses that they own a substantial number of shares in that specific pharmaceutical company. The plaintiff's attorney would likely make a causal challenge.

  Explanation: The potential juror's direct financial stake in the defendant company's success or failure provides a clear "cause" for bias. A verdict against the company could negatively impact the juror's personal investments, creating a conflict of interest that compromises their ability to render an impartial judgment.