challenge for cause

• Edge v. Fairview Hosp., (Ohio 2011)

Abuse of discretion, medical malpractice, Evid.R. 803(6), hearsay, Evid.R. 703, Evid.R. 801(D)(2), closing argument, challenge for cause, prospective juror, R.C. 2313.42, cumulative error.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Stephens' Playwrights Plan Challenge for a Cause

Stephens College students kick off the 24-Hour Play Challenge on Saturday, which will showcase students who will write, rehearse and perform awareness...

• Columbia Daily Tribune
• November 13, 2008

• State v. Gates, (Ohio 2011)

voir dire – challenge for cause – presume regularity – Crim.R. 29 – sufficiency of the evidence – hearsay – prior bad acts – Evid.R. 404(B) – ineffective assistance of counsel – prejudice

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Disability-Based Peremptory Challenge: Need for Elimination

Introduction I. Past Versus Present A. Juror Qualification Requirements B. Challenge for Cause C. Jurors' Rights v. Parties' Rights II. The Peremptory Challenge and Its Application A. Batson and Its Extension to People with Disabilities III. Should the Court Extend the Batson-J.E.B. Model to People With Disabilities? Conclusion

• Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal
• Nbr. IV-1, March 2006

• New York Court of Appeals: 'Implied Bias' of Potential Juror Results in New Trial

A new trial is being ordered for a Wayne County man because a prospective juror at his trial knew several of the witnesses who testified. The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled Oswego County Court abused its discretion when it denied Scott C. Furey's for- cause challenge.

• Daily Record (Rochester, NY)
• December 22, 2011

• State v. Allsup, (Ohio 2011)

The trial court did not err when it excluded the testimony of the defendant’s non-expert witnesses concluding that the testimony was not relevant and confusing to the jury; when it instructed the jury on voluntary intoxication with respect to culpability for criminal liability; when it found that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the charge of felonious assault against the defendant; when it overruled the defendant’s challenge for cause of a potential juror based on the juror's employment with the State and; when it properly applied the sentencing principles of R.C. 2929.11 upon imposing the defendant’s sentence.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• The Year in Voir Dire and Challenges, and Pleas and Pretrial Agreements

This "significant relationship of trust" between CPT P and the victim created an appearance of unfairness in the court-martial process which warranted the excusal of CPT P under an implied bias theory.30 Similarly, in United States v. Moreno, the military judge denied defense's challenge for cause against a panel member.31 In Moreno, the accused, who worked in the comptroller's disbursing office, was convicted of rape by an officer panel.32 The eventual panel president, LTC F, the deputy comptroller, obtained pretrial knowledge of the accused's case through his own investigative efforts and newspaper articles.33 LTC F described his efforts as "simply fact finding" so he had a "complete picture" of the incident to report to his boss, the comptroller.34 The military judge granted seve...

• Army Lawyer, The
• Nbr. 6/2007, June 2007

• State v. Speer (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-649

Trials — Criminal procedure — Jurors — Competence — Hearing-impaired juror not per se incompetent to serve — Hearing-impaired juror must be able to perceive and understand all evidence presented — Presence of juror who cannot perceive and understand all evidence deprives defendant of fair trial — In deciding challenge for cause to impaired juror, court must determine whether any reasonable accommodation can be made to enable juror to serve competently.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Hammoud v. Cleveland Clinic Found., (Ohio 2005)

Evidence–Expert - Jury–Peremptory Challenge, Challenge for Cause, Voir Dire - Hearsay–Party Admissions - Appeal & Error - Presumption of Regularity.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Gatewood, (Ohio 2012)

Appellant’s right to speedy trial was violated with respect to two counts which were dismissed from the original indictment and then re-indicted after the case had been successfully appealed and remanded to the trial court. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained the State’s challenge of a juror for cause who stated that he was biased against the local police who had arrested appellant. Trial court abused its discretion when it relied on improper factors when it imposed maximum consecutive sentences on appellant. Comments made by trial court evinced a vindictive sentence imposed in retaliation for appellant’s decision to exercise his constitutional rights. No cumulative error at trial. Appellant’s convictions for illegal conveyance and having weapons while under ...

• Ohio Supreme Court