Which of the following is a valid ground for a challenge for cause against a juror?

• A. Juror is an employee of a party to the action
• B. Juror is a relative of a party not involved in the case
• C. Juror lives outside the jurisdiction
• D. Juror has previously served on a different court

Answer: (A)

When a juror cannot be fair because of a real bias tied to the case, a party can use a challenge for cause to remove that juror. The clearest example is a juror who is an employee of a party to the action. That relationship creates a direct, ongoing interest in the party’s outcome, so the juror is not capable of ruling impartially. The court recognizes this as a legitimate ground to excuse a juror for cause to preserve a fair trial.

By contrast, the other scenarios don’t demonstrate the same direct risk of bias. Being a relative of a party who isn’t otherwise involved in the case doesn’t, by itself, show the juror would be biased about the issues or the outcome, especially if the relative isn’t connected to the evidence or proceedings. Living outside the jurisdiction isn’t inherently a matter of impartiality; it’s more about practical service concerns and can usually be handled by nonjury or excusal for logistics. Having served on a different court in the past doesn’t imply bias toward either side in the current case; it may even indicate experience, which isn’t a disqualifying factor for cause.

So the strongest, most direct basis for a challenge for cause among these options is the juror’s employment relationship with a party to the action.