Definition
Imagine arriving home from work on a beautiful, sunny afternoon. As you stroll to your mailbox, everything feels rights in the world. And then, suddenly, there it is. Sitting in your mailbox...a notice instructing you to report for jury duty. The horror!
Don't panic. Not only can jury duty be an interesting and exciting experience, but serving as a juror in a legal proceeding is an extremely important civic duty. But how can judges and attorneys ensure that a jury will be fair? And what happens when a prospective juror is unfit to serve on a case?
Challenge for cause, or 'strike for cause,' is a practice that allows attorneys to remove potential jurors who are incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict in a trial. In other words, a challenge for cause is used to get rid of any jurors who can't consider the evidence fairly, or who will be influenced by hidden biases. Challenges for cause differ from peremptory challenges, which may be used by either side to remove prospective jurors for any reason.
While there's no real limit to the amount of challenges for cause that may be used, the attorney must state a specific reason as to why the challenged juror can't be fair. Once a challenge for cause is made, it is up to the judge to decide whether the potential juror is fit to serve on the jury.
Challenges for cause may be based on a variety of factors. Legal qualifications in a given jurisdiction may require that a prospective juror be excused because the juror has a mental or physical condition that would prevent service (i.e. serious hearing or vision problems). Close relationships with parties involved in case may also serve as a basis for a challenge for cause.
Actual biases, like prior knowledge of the facts of the case or a deeply ingrained attitude about the case, may result in a juror being removed for cause. In addition, an inability to follow the judge's orders because of a preconceived opinion may also lead to a challenge. A juror's inability to consider certain sentence recommendations must also be taken into account.
As an example, let's say you're a prospective juror who is waiting in the jury pool for a double-murder case. The prosecutor asks the members pool if anyone has an opinion about the death penalty. You raise your hand and explain that you strongly oppose the death penalty because of your religious beliefs. When pressed to explain this opinion, you state that you would never vote to sentence someone to death, even if the facts of the case were heinous. Because of this, you'd likely be removed for cause due to your inability to consider the full range of penalties.
