Legal Definitions - jury challenge

A jury challenge is a formal objection made by an attorney during the jury selection process, known as voir dire, to prevent a particular individual from serving on a jury. The primary goal of a jury challenge is to ensure that the final jury is fair, impartial, and capable of rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court.

There are two main types of jury challenges:

• Challenge for Cause: This type of challenge is made when there is a specific, legally recognized reason to believe a potential juror cannot be fair or impartial. Reasons might include a personal relationship with a party in the case, a strong bias or prejudice, or an inability to understand the language or follow court instructions. There is no limit to the number of challenges for cause, but the judge must agree that the reason is valid.
• Peremptory Challenge: This allows an attorney to remove a potential juror without stating a specific reason. Each side is typically allotted a limited number of peremptory challenges. However, these challenges cannot be used to discriminate against potential jurors based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, or religion.

Here are some examples illustrating how a jury challenge might be used:

• Example 1 (Challenge for Cause): During the jury selection for a high-profile criminal trial, a potential juror states that they are a close personal friend of the victim's family and have already formed a strong opinion about the defendant's guilt. The defense attorney would likely make a challenge for cause, arguing that this individual cannot be impartial due to their personal connection and pre-existing belief. If the judge agrees, the potential juror would be excused.

  This example illustrates a challenge for cause because the potential juror has a clear, stated bias that would prevent them from being fair and impartial, providing a specific, legally valid reason for their removal.

• Example 2 (Peremptory Challenge): In a civil lawsuit concerning a contract dispute, a potential juror expresses during questioning that they have never trusted large corporations, even though they claim they could still be fair. While this sentiment might not be strong enough for a judge to grant a "challenge for cause," the plaintiff's attorney, representing a corporation, might use one of their limited peremptory challenges to remove this individual. The attorney might feel that despite the juror's assurances, their underlying distrust could subtly influence their judgment against their client.

  This example demonstrates a peremptory challenge because the attorney removed the potential juror based on a strategic judgment or intuition, without needing to prove a specific legal disqualification to the judge.

• Example 3 (Challenge for Cause - Inability to Serve): During the selection process for a complex medical malpractice case, a potential juror admits they have a severe hearing impairment that makes it difficult for them to follow spoken conversations, especially in a large courtroom setting. Both attorneys might agree, or one might initiate a challenge for cause, arguing that the juror's hearing impairment would prevent them from fully understanding the testimony and evidence presented, thus making them unable to fulfill their duties as a juror.

  This example highlights a challenge for cause based on a practical inability to perform juror duties, ensuring that all jurors can fully participate and comprehend the proceedings.