Well, far as I'm concerned if the juror can't be fair then yes that's "for
cause". But I'd say it has to be more than "We don't think they'll be fair.". If
a party or the judge wants to dismiss for that reason, they have to come up with
some statement by the juror that suggests they won't be fair. And yes, it should
be legal to check the background of potential jurors, because IMO making false
or deceptive statements during voir dire falls under "for cause". It doesn't
matter how much both parties or the judge want that juror off the case,
the only question should be whether they can show cause to dismiss the
juror. If all you have is a feeling, unsupported by any statement by the juror
or anything in the juror's background, you haven't shown cause.
One of
the reasons the judge is there is to decide "soft" issues like "Has party A
shown sufficient cause to dismiss a juror?". Let the judge do his job. If a
party can show sufficient cause, that compromised juror shouldn't be left on the
panel just because there's been so many compromised jurors before him. And if
they can't, then they shouldn't be able to bias the jury panel in their favor by
dismissing jurors who aren't compromised but don't fit the party's template for
"likely to rule in my favor". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|