What legal mechanism allows an attorney to challenge a juror for a specific reason?

The challenge for cause is a legal mechanism that enables an attorney to object to the inclusion of a juror based on a specific reason that suggests the juror may be biased or not impartial. This could include instances where the juror has a personal connection to the case, holds strong preconceived notions about the case, or exhibits a lack of impartiality. The key aspect of a challenge for cause is that it must be supported by specific evidence or justification, and the presiding judge will determine whether the challenge is valid.

This contrasts with the peremptory challenge, which allows attorneys to dismiss a juror without providing a reason, though there are limits on the number of peremptory challenges available and, importantly, they cannot be used in a discriminatory manner based on race or gender.

Jury nullification refers to the jury's ability to acquit a defendant regardless of the evidence, based on their personal beliefs about the law or the case, and is not a mechanism for challenging jurors. Judicial review involves the higher courts reviewing the actions of lower courts and is unrelated to the selection of jurors during a trial.

In summary, the challenge for cause specifically addresses concerns about a juror’s qualifications and fairness, making it the appropriate choice for challenging