There are three bases For Cause Challenge of a prospective juror: General Disqualification, Implied Bias, and Actual Bias. (Code Civ. Proc. § 225(b)(1).)
“Section 229 defines “implied bias” by setting out categories which, as a matter of law, render a prospective juror unqualified to serve.” (People v. Deen (April 6, 2026) S092615.)
Relationship of a prospective juror to parties/witnesses in a given case (family member, landlord/tenant, officer of a corporation, etc)
Having an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action founded upon knowledge of its material facts or of some of them. (Code Civ. Proc § 229(e).)
The existence of a state of mind in the juror evincing enmity against, or bias towards, either party. (Code Civ. Proc § 229(f).)
Actual bias includes: the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party. (People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 898.)
“These factors include the person’s statements, along with any expression of concern or hesitancy; the panelist’s knowledge of and relationship to the victim or the defendant; and their own assessment of their willingness and ability to discharge their responsibility as the law requires. But even when a panelist says they want to be fair, and believes they can be, the ultimate question remains with the court.” (People v. Deen (April 6, 2026) S092615; see also People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997, 1041.)
A juror may be constitutionally excused for cause if the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror’s duties as defined by the court’s instructions and the juror’s oath. (People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 750.)
The duties of a juror include the duty to set aside personal feelings and opinions and decide the case based solely on the evidence and instructions provided by the court.
And one of the standard instructions given here and provided to all jurors in criminal cases contains the well-settled admonition not to let bias or sympathy influence their decision. (CALCRIM 101, 200.)
First Challenge for Cause: Defense. (CCP § 226(d).)
Number of Challenges: 10 per side. (CCP § 231(a).)
Co-Ds: 10 “jointly” among Co-Ds + 5 separate peremptory challenges per Co-D. People have same total # of separate challenges as combined Co-Ds. (CCP § 231(a).)
Ex: 3 Co-D case, each side has 25 peremptory challenges (10 joint, 5 separate per Co-D)
Code of Civil Procedure § 231.7(a). “[A] party shall not use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race…”
This framework was enacted “to establish a new process for identifying unlawful bias in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection because studies showed that the existing Batson/Wheeler analysis … was inadequate to prevent racial discrimination.” (People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 539, 539-540.)
The statute prohibits the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups. (Id. at p. 540.)
Framework
(A) Objection. The party or court on its own motion may object to the improper use of a peremptory challenge. (CCP § 231.7(b).)
(B) Reason for Challenge. The party exercising challenge states the reason for exercising the challenge. (CCP § 231.7(c).)
If reason is listed under CCP § 231.7(e), Court must engage in Presumptive Invalidity Analysis
If reason is NOT listed under CCP § 231.7(e), Court proceeds to Totality of Circumstances Analysis
(C) Court Evaluates Reason.
Step 1: Analysis for Presumptively Invalid Reason. (CCP § 231.7(e), see below)
If reason for exercising peremptory challenge is listed under CCP § 231.7(e), the peremptory challenge is presumed to be invalid.
If presumption is overcome –> move to Step 2
Step 2: Totality of the Circumstances Analysis. “The court shall evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances,” considering only the reasons actually given. (CCP § 231.7(d)(1).)
“If the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race…as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the objection shall be sustained. (CCP § 231.7(d)(1).)
Substantial likelihood means more than a mere possibility but less than a standard of more likely than not. (CCP § 231.7(d)(2)(B).)
“[A]n objectively reasonable person is aware that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California,” and “‘unconscious bias’ includes implicit and institutional biases.”(CCP § 231.7(d)(2)(A), (C).)
Court Evaluation Where CCP § 231.7(e) Triggered (Presumptive Invalidity Analysis)
Overcoming Presumption. A peremptory challenge for a reason listed in CCP 231.7(e) is presumed to be invalid “unless the party exercising the peremptory challenge can show by clear and convincing evidence that an objectively reasonable person would view the rationale as unrelated to a prospective juror’s race…and that the reasons articulated bear on the prospective juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case.” (CCP 231.7(e).)
Clear and Convincing Evidence to overcome the presumption exists when the court, “bearing in mind conscious and unconscious bias,” determines “that it is highly probable that the reasons given for the exercise of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to conscious or unconscious bias and are instead specific to the juror and bear on that juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case.” (CCP 231.7(f).)
Negative experience with law enforcement or criminal legal system
Express belief that law enforcement engage in racial profiling or criminal laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner
Has a close relationship with people stopped, arrested, or convicted of a crime
Prospective juror’s neighborhood
Having a child outside of marriage
Receiving state benefits
Not being a native English speaker
Ability to speak another language
Dress, attire, or personal appearance
Employment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members of a Protected Group
Lack of employment or underemployment of prospective juror or their family member
Prospective juror’s apparent friendliness with another prospective juror of Protected Group
Inattentive, or staring or failing to make eye contact
Exhibited either a lack of rapport or problematic attitude, body language, or demeanor
Provided unintelligent or confused answers
Demeanor-Based Reasons For Exercising Peremptory. Presumptively invalid demeanor-based reasons (italicized above) are presumptively invalid “unless the trial court is able to confirm that the asserted behavior occurred, based on the court’s own observations or the observations of counsel for the objecting party” and “the counsel offering the reason shall explain why the asserted demeanor, behavior, or manner in which the prospective juror answered questions matters to the case to be tried.” (CCP 231.7(g)(2).)
Latina juror expressed belief about racial bias of LEOs, and repeatedly acknowledged she would have difficulty setting aside her bias against LEOs to fairly consider their testimony, despite her initial assurances that she could be fair. White juror expressed similar sentiment. Prosecutor exercised for-cause challenge to white juror, and peremptory as to Latina juror.
Held, reason was presumptively invalid (under § 231.7(e)), but there was clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of invalidity.
Held, under the totality of the circumstances, no substantial likelihood an objectively reasonable person would view cognizable group membership as a factor in the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge.
Consistently sought to excuse or challenge prospective jurors who expressed a potential inability to be fair
Did not seek to remove all Latino prospective jurors
P used peremptory challenge on juror who expressed bitterness towards LEO for its handling of his cousin’s murder, was visibly emotional speaking about the situation to the point that he struggled to get words out, indicated multiple times he did not know whether he could be impartial towards LEO
Held, “an objectively reasonable person would view challenge of juror due to his feelings on law enforcement as related to his ability to be fair based on his repeated acknowledgement that he would have difficulty setting aside his bias and being fair.”
“No matter a person’s background, race, or economic standing, if the juror does not pay attention, the juror does not belong on any jury…no capable attorney would fail to challenge such a juror unless the attorney had what is known in the trade as a dead-bang loser.”
Presumption of Invalidity NOT overcome
(People v. Aguilar (Jan. 2, 2026) D083172.)
Hypothetical re: In-and-Out, person gets a burger, sits at a table, picks up burger. Whether entered store with intent to eat burger.
P’s stated reason was juror “kept going back and forth with her answers” and therefore “struggling” with the concept of intent to eat the burger. Trial Court agreed, found juror’s answers “equivocal” and indicative of confusion on the issue of intent
Held, juror confusion is a presumptively invalid reason for a peremptory challenge.
Held, trial court’s finding of juror confusion is unsubstantiated by the record, presumption of invalidity not overcome.
P used peremptory challenge w/ “Spanish surname” based on her lack of life experience, and not currently employed
Held, lack of life experience was a presumptively invalid reason for excusing the juror, as it was based in part on the juror’s lack of employment.
P failed to make any showing it was highly probable that an objectively reasonable person would view this reason as unrelated to juror’s perceived ethnicity.
P failed to make any showing that the juror’s lack of employment bore on her ability to be fair and impartial
Presumption of Invalidity Analysis Inapplicable
(People v. Garcia (Oct. 9, 2025) A165535.)
Juror’s youth, lack of life experience, and views about allegations of sexual assault against a famous athlete, Trial Court held are NOT presumptively invalid reasons for excusing juror (Court of Appeal declined to address whether trial court erred in this conclusion)
Consequences of sustained objection to peremptory challenge. Court may either:
Quash jury venire and start jury selection anew
If granted after jury is impaneled, declare a mistrial
Seat the challenged juror
Provide objecting party additional challenges
Provide another remedy the Court deems appropriate