(Types of) Challenges to Eliminate Jurors:

n. (14c.)

1. An act or instance of formally questioning the legality or legal qualifications of a person, action, or thing <a challenge to the opposing party’s expert witness>.

As-Applied Challenge – a claim that a law or governmental policy, though constitutional on its face, is unconstitutional as applied, usually because of a discriminatory effect.

Batson Challenge (Batson Rule) – object that an opposing party has used a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. — originates from Batson v. Kentucky (1986).

reverse Batson challenge. (1992) A prosecution objer tion to the defense’s attempted exercise of a peremptory challenge against a juror on grounds that the challenge may have been based on race or some other improper ground.

constitutional challenge. (1936) A claim that a law or governmental action is unconstitutional.

facial challenge. (1973) A claim that a statute is unconstitutional on its face – that is, that it always operates unconstitutionally.


2. A party’s request that a judge disqualify a potential juror or an entire jury panel <the personal injury plaintiff used his last challenge to disqualify a neurosurgeon>. — aka jury challenge.

Challenge for Cause – a party’s voir dire objection to a juror, supported by a specified reason, which should disqualify the potential juror. — aka for-cause challenge; for-cause; causal challenge; general challenge; challenge to the poll.


challenge for principal cause:

1. An objection lodged against a juror on voir dire on the ground of an absolute disqualification, such as consanguinity or relationship within the prohibited degree, leaving nothing to the discretion of the court in reference to the determination of the likelihood of actual bias.  31 Am J Rev ed Jur § 147.

challenge to the favor:

An objection lodged against an individual juror for bias, such to be determined by the trial court acting in the exercise of a sound discretion.  31 Am J Rev ed Jur § 147[1]


p causal challenge. See challenge for cause.

> challenge propter afectum (prop-tar a-fek-tam). (18c) A challenge based on a claim that some circumstance, such as kinship with a party, renders the potential juror incompetent to serve in the particular case.

> challenge propter defectum (prop-tar da-fek-tam). (1828) A challenge based on a claim that the juror is incompetent to serve on any jury for a reason such as alienage, infancy, or nonresidency.

> challenge propter delictum (prop-tar da-lik-tam). (1802) A challenge based on a claim that the potential juror has lost citizenship rights, as by being convicted of an infamous crime. See civil death (1) under DEATH.

> challenge to the array. (16c) A legal challenge to the manner in which the entire jury panel was selected, usu. for a failure to follow prescribed procedures designed to produce impartial juries drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. 0 Such a challenge is either a principal challenge (if some defect renders the jury prima facie incompetent, as where the officer selecting veniremembers is related to the prosecutor or defendant) or a challenge for favoritism as where the defect does not amount to grounds for a principal challenge, but there is a probability of partiality). — aka challenge to the jury array.

challenge to the favor. (1834) A challenge for cause that arises when facts and circumstances tend to show that a juror is biased but do not warrant the juror’s automatic disqualification. See challenge for cause.

is challenge to the poll. See challenge for cause. > general challenge. See challenge for cause.

Peremptory Challenge – a final, absolute challenge to a juror that a party may exercise without having to give a reason.

b principal challenge. (1830) A for-cause challenge that arises when facts and circumstances support a conclu~ sive presumption of a juror’s bias, resulting in automatic disqualification. See challenge for cause.


Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use.

[1]: Black’s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition by Henry Campbell Black, Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-61300-4

[2]: Ballantine’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations
Third Edition
 by James A. Ballantine (James Arthur 1871-1949).  Edited by William S. Anderson.  © 1969 by THE LAWYER’S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.  Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931

To be Added:

[3]:  Ballantine’s Law Dictionary Legal Assistant Edition
by Jack Ballantine 
(James Arthur 1871-1949).  Doctored by Jack G. Handler, J.D. © 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.  ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.


Back to Trial by Jury – what to know

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Simplified

All Federal Rules of Procedure Simplified

Intro to Law

Like this website?

Please Support Our Fundraiser

or donate via PayPal:


Disclaimer: Wild Willpower does not condone the actions of Maximilian Robespierre, however the above quote is excellent!

This website is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes courtesy of

Question(s)?  Suggestion(s)?
We look forward to hearing from you!