In my previous post, I wrote about the importance of and legal support for inquiring into prospective jurors’ perspectives on race and racial bias, which may include the Black Lives Matter movement. Let’s imagine that a potential juror expresses a favorable opinion of Black Lives Matter and also states that she can remain impartial and follow the judge’s instructions. If there is an attempt to remove that juror from the pool for cause based on her Black Lives Matter support, should it be sustained? Would it violate Batson to strike a juror on this basis? This post considers those questions. For starters, what’s the difference between a challenge for cause and a peremptory strike? During jury selection, there are two different tools lawyers may use to block the seating of potential jurors. The first is a challenge for cause, where the lawyer argues that the potential juror is not legally qualified to serve as a juror in a particular trial. See G.S. 15A-1212. Lawyers may make an unlimited number of challenges for cause. The second is a peremptory strike, which are limited in number and may be used to strike jurors for any reason other than race, gender, or ethnicity. See G.S. 15A-1217. Challenges for cause Let’s imagine that the prosecutor challenges a potential juror for cause based on her expression of support for Black Lives Matter, arguing that this support reflects bias against the police and an inability to render a fair and impartial verdict. See G.S. 15A-1212(9) (challenge for [...]