Jury Challenges

Jury Challenges

Jury selection is a crucial part of trial. Jury selection is a process that occurs before the start of trial to determine who will ultimately sit on the jury to hear and decide the case at hand. Once a jury pool is present, either the Court or the attorneys in the case ask the potential jurors questions. This process is called voir dire. For more details about voir dire, check out “Voir Dire and Its Role in Jury Selection.”

During the jury selection process, each side is allowed to challenge potential jurors from the jury pool. There are two types of jury challenges: a challenge for cause and a peremptory challenge. This blog will provide a brief overview on both types of challenges. To start, a challenge for cause is “a request to disqualify a potential juror for specific reasons.” The specific reasons can include, but are not limited to, bias, clear prejudice, prior knowledge of the incident, or being incapable of serving on the jury. Challenging a potential juror for cause makes sense as it is important that there is a fair trial and impartial jury.

On the other hand, a peremptory challenge “results in the exclusion of a potential juror without the need for any reason or explanation – unless the opposing party presents a prima facie argument that this challenge was used to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.” Put another way, a peremptory challenge is a method of removing a potential juror without any reason or cause. There is typically only a certain number of peremptory challenges allowed. Bear in mind, a peremptory challenge may be allowed unless there is a showing that the challenge was used to discriminate against a potential juror.

As one can tell, jury challenges are an integral part of jury selection. Attorneys attempt to use the challenges in a way to ensure that there is an impartial jury selected to hear and decide a case. Utilizing and determining when it is the best time to use a specific type of challenge could potentially have large ramifications on who is ultimately deciding a case.