The term "challenge for cause" refers to the practice of lawyers questioning potential jurors in order to determine if they should be excluded from serving on a jury in a trial. The spelling of this term is straightforward and can be broken down into its individual sounds using IPA phonetic transcription. The initial sound is "tʃ," followed by the short "æ" sound, and then "l," "ɪ," and "ndʒ." The final two words, "for cause," are spelled phonetically as "fɔr kɔz."
A challenge for cause refers to the process by which a party in a legal proceeding, such as a trial or a jury selection, requests the removal of a potential juror or a judge based on a specific and valid reason. This challenge is made due to the belief that the juror or judge may be biased or unable to fairly or impartially interpret the law and deliver a fair decision.
Unlike a peremptory challenge, where an attorney can remove a limited number of potential jurors without stating a specific reason, a challenge for cause requires the presenting party to present a reasonable and convincing argument to support their request. Valid causes for such challenges may include a juror's existing relationship with any party involved in the case, personal bias or prejudice, or a demonstrated lack of qualification or ability to understand and assess the evidence presented.
The party making the challenge must provide sufficient evidence or argument to convince the judge or the opposing counsel of its merit. The opposing party may choose to oppose the challenge by presenting counter-arguments or challenging the validity of the reason provided. Ultimately, it is up to the presiding judge to decide whether the challenge for cause is valid and to grant the removal of the juror or judge from the proceedings.
The purpose of challenges for cause is to ensure the integrity of the legal process by eliminating potential sources of bias or unfairness, thereby promoting a fair and just determination of the case at hand.