removing biased jurors is the role of the challenge for cause
, the most
52) Thus, the Court held in order to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause
extend the protection of challenge for cause
procedures to help ensure the absence of any prohibited motives in juror deliberations;
27) In short, if the trial court's error in denying a challenge for cause
required the challenging party to "waste" a peremptory challenge on that prospective juror, resulting in the seating of another juror for whom the litigant would have exercised a peremptory challenge, the error is harmful.
3) When the nature of any civil action requires a knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic, or any of them, to enable a juror to understand the evidence to be offered, the fact that any prospective juror does not possess the qualifications is a ground of challenge for cause
134) Specifically, the court determined that the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause
constituted reversible error if the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges; the defendant did not bear the burden of proving that he was actually denied a fair trial.
400, 405 (1955) with emphasis added) ("The accused should be allowed considerable latitude in examining members so as to be in a position to intelligently and wisely exercise a challenge for cause
or a peremptory challenge.
For example, when a juror has a general negative feeling about personal injury lawsuits, and further states that he can set aside his feelings, a challenge for cause
will usually be denied.
And I do believe that there ought to be more liberalization of the court's ability and desire to challenge for cause
, so that we wouldn't need peremptory challenges.
The right to a challenge for cause
exists in any stage of the jury selection process, and it is not necessary that the accused exhaust his peremptory challenges prior to challenging for cause.
Despite the courts' repeated invocation of the mandate, often in the context of reversing a military judge's ruling on a challenge, no appellate court has reversed a military judge's denial of a challenge for cause
on the ground that the judge did not apply the liberal grant mandate.
The right to challenge for cause
is not automatic, and an accused must show a reasonable basis for the suggested bias or prejudice either by, for example, sociological evidence, or by "judicial notice".