the risk of error incurred by a challenge for cause
92) Defense counsel's challenge for cause
Whether a prospective juror who has been identified as biased can be "rehabilitated" plays an essential role in the trial judge's determination of a challenge for cause
It began by noting that under Oklahoma law, as in virtually all other states, (31) a defendant waives the right to argue that a trial judge erroneously denied a defense challenge for cause
if the defendant fails to use an available peremptory challenge to remove the erroneously retained juror.
Thus, an erroneous ruling on a challenge for cause
could only be considered harmless error if the defendant subsequently failed to exhaust his peremptory challenges.
At trial, the military judge denied the defense challenge for cause
of this member.
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".
A party can preserve an error in the denial of a challenge for cause
only by 1) exhausting all his or her peremptory challenges; 2) thereafter seeking additional peremptory challenges; 3) having the request for additional challenges denied; and 4) identifying on the record which objectionable jurors he or she would excuse if granted additional challenges.
Suspicion about a potential juror's performance that fell short of justifying a challenge for cause
would all but invariably be based on a generalization about some group to which the juror belongs.