• The individual has another relationship to a party or witness (i.e., fiduciary, domestic or business).

    Stock ownership in a party to the action is a business relationship. If you find it beneficial to remove a potential juror, you can advocate for the prospective juror’s removal on grounds of implied bias. Be warned that California does not have a clear-cut rule on the amount of stock required to establish a business relationship. Delaware law, however, can be persuasive because it presumes bias regardless of the quantity of stock owned. (In Re Asbestos Litigation Ltd., 626 A. 2d 330 (1993).)


  • The individual was a prior juror or witness in litigation involving one of the parties in the case at hand.

  • The individual has an interest in the litigation.

  • The individual has an unqualified opinion as to merits based on knowledge of material facts.

  • The individual has enmity or bias toward one of the parties.

  • Sometimes jurors may know individuals, companies or public institutions involved in the matter that will be tried before them and may be inclined to pass judgment on the merits of the case because of this knowledge. This is improper and provides grounds for their removal because it amounts to an “unqualified opinion” and implies bias.

    In some instances jurors will admit that they will refuse to follow instructions if the law goes against their conscience. This, too, is improper and constitutes “enmity or bias,” which supports their removal.

    Actual bias is characterized as a state of mind regarding the case or parties that would prevent a juror from acting in an entirely impartial manner. In other words, prospective jurors are properly excluded for cause if they require you to go beyond your burden of proof, e.g., requiring more than a preponderance of evidence to render a plaintiff’s verdict.

    The following areas illustrate grounds for proper cause challenges established by actual bias. Any of these examples on their own are sufficient for a potential juror to be disqualified for cause.
    • Strong belief: In an action for rent, a prospective juror who expressed his dislike for landlords was properly disqualified for cause. (Lawlor v. Linforth, 72 Cal. 205 (1887))
    • Long-held belief: In an action to enforce a divorce agreement, a prospective juror’s long-held beliefs regarding divorce and remarriage can be the basis for a challenge. (Smith v. Smith, 7 Cal.App.2d 271 (1935))
    • Belief not easily set aside: In a personal injury action, a prospective juror had considerable experience with the type of injury at issue. The prospective juror’s preconceived ideas regarding the types of injuries were sufficient to exclude that person for cause. (Liebman v. Curtis, 138 Cal.App.2d 222 (1955))
    • Party starts at disadvantage: In an action against a railroad, a prospective juror felt that many damage suits against the railroad were the fault of the injured parties instead of the railroad. The prospective juror was properly disqualified for cause. (Fitts v. Southern Pac. Co., 149 Cal. 310 (1906))


    It is useful to go through all four areas with a potential for-cause challenge in excruciating detail. Again, have your co-counsel make a note of specific phrases used by the potential juror. When making your argument for challenge, use case citations on the record so that the judge (and potentially an appellate court) understands the basis for your challenge.

    Often, in an effort to rehabilitate a prospective juror who has already admitted bias, the trial judge or opposing counsel will ask, “Can you be fair?” And, more likely than not, the prospective juror will answer, “Yes, of course I can be fair.” Who wants to admit that they cannot be fair? Even if the response is genuine, declaring fairness does not make up for a prior confirmation of bias. Consequently, you should still move for the prospective juror’s exclusion because a mere promise to be impartial is insufficient to excuse admitted bias. (Lombardi v. California Street Ry. Co., 124 Cal. 311 (1899))

    The time that you’ve invested in your case will be meaningless if a juror is predisposed to dislike your client before you even stand up in court and say “good morning.” Remove that individual with a for-cause challenge before the juror infects others. You must articulate a valid legal reason grounded in general disqualification, implied bias or actual bias in order to do so. Consequently, your questioning should focus on the topics, issues and concerns that will provide the facts necessary to demonstrate a for-cause challenge.

    The California Constitution guarantees an impartial jury as a matter of right. But it remains your job to guide the court to remove for-cause challenges to ensure a jury’s impartiality. In the end, the playing field is as level as you make it.

    Miles B. Cooper is a member of The Veen Firm in San Francisco, a plaintiffs-oriented civil litigation firm. Allister R. Liao is a law clerk at the firm.