Legal Definitions - standing aside a juror

Standing aside a juror is a practice used by the prosecution during the jury selection process in some legal systems. It allows the prosecution to temporarily set aside a potential juror without having to state a specific reason or formally challenge them for cause. This juror is not immediately dismissed from the jury pool but is put aside until all other available potential jurors have been considered. If, after reviewing the rest of the jury pool, there are still not enough jurors to form a complete jury, those who were "stood aside" might then be reconsidered.

This practice differs from a "challenge for cause," where a specific, legally recognized reason (like bias or inability to be impartial) must be presented to the judge for a juror's removal. It also differs from a "peremptory challenge," which allows a party to remove a juror without stating a reason, but these challenges are limited in number.

• Example 1: Addressing Subtle Unease

  During jury selection for a complex financial fraud trial, the prosecutor observes a potential juror, Ms. Ramirez, frequently checking her watch and appearing distracted during the judge's lengthy instructions on legal principles. While Ms. Ramirez's behavior isn't severe enough to constitute a legal "cause" for dismissal (she hasn't expressed bias or an inability to serve), the prosecutor has a subtle concern about her potential engagement and attention span for a detailed case. Instead of using one of their limited peremptory challenges or attempting to argue for a "for cause" dismissal, the prosecutor asks the judge to "stand aside" Ms. Ramirez. This means Ms. Ramirez is temporarily set aside, and the court proceeds to interview other potential jurors. If the entire available pool is exhausted and more jurors are still needed, Ms. Ramirez might be recalled for reconsideration.

  Explanation: This illustrates "standing aside" because the prosecutor has a vague, unarticulated concern about Ms. Ramirez's suitability but no specific legal reason to formally challenge her. The practice allows them to provisionally remove her without explanation, hoping to find a more attentive juror from the remaining panel.

• Example 2: Strategic Preservation of Challenges

  In a high-profile criminal case involving a controversial new law, the prosecution interviews Mr. Davies, a potential juror who expresses a general philosophical skepticism about the government's ability to regulate personal freedoms. While his views are not so extreme as to legally disqualify him for cause, the prosecutor believes his perspective *could* be unfavorable to their case. However, the prosecution also wants to preserve their limited peremptory challenges for individuals who might exhibit more direct or pronounced biases. Rather than immediately using a peremptory challenge on Mr. Davies, the prosecutor requests he be "stood aside." This allows them to evaluate the rest of the jury pool first, saving their peremptory challenges for jurors with more critical issues, and only reconsider Mr. Davies if the pool runs out.

  Explanation: This demonstrates "standing aside" as a strategic move. The prosecution doesn't have a definitive "for cause" reason but wants to keep options open and prioritize the selection of other jurors before committing to or definitively dismissing Mr. Davies, while also preserving their valuable peremptory challenges.