25-1652. Jurors; challenge for cause; grounds.
533 words·~2 min read·
/ne/chapter-25/25-1652A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
(1)It shall be ground for challenge for cause that any potential juror:
(a)Does not possess the qualifications of a juror as set forth in section 25-1650 or is excluded by the terms of section 25-1650 ;
(b)has requested or solicited any officer of the court or officer charged in any manner with the duty of selecting the jury to place such juror upon the jury panel; or
(c)otherwise lacks any of the qualifications provided by law.
(2)It shall not be a ground for challenge for cause that a potential juror has read, heard, or watched in news media an account of the commission of a crime with which a defendant is charged, if such juror states under oath that he or she can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence and the court is satisfied as to the truth of such statement. In the trial of any criminal cause, the fact that a person called as a juror has formed an opinion based upon rumor or statements or reports in news media, and as to the truth of which the person has formed no opinion, shall not disqualify the person to serve as a juror on such cause, if the person states under oath that he or she can fully and impartially render a verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence and the court is satisfied as to the truth of such statement.
The fact that many, most, or even all the jurors knew something about the case in advance does not entitle a defendant to a change of venue, for a criminal defendant is not guaranteed a jury totally ignorant of the facts and circumstances of his or her case. State v. Phelps, 241 Neb. 707, 490 N.W.2d 676 (1992).
It is not a cause challenge that a juror has read in the newspapers an account of the commission of a crime with which a prisoner is charged if such juror shall state on oath that it is the belief of that person that he or she can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence, and the court shall be satisfied as to the truth of that statement. State v. Jacobs, 226 Neb. 184, 410 N.W.2d 468 (1987).
To safeguard constitutional right of trial by jury in criminal case, legislature has provided for challenges for cause. Oden v. State, 166 Neb. 729, 90 N.W.2d 356 (1958).
Failure to interrogate jurors as to his residence waives disqualification of juror who is nonresident of county. Marino v. State, 111 Neb. 623, 197 N.W. 396 (1924).
An employee of a party, including a corporate party, is ineligible to serve on a jury involving its employer, and the challenge to such potential jurors may be made by either party to the litigation. When a challenge to a potential juror or venire is made on the basis of employment of a potential juror by a party to the litigation, it is not necessary that the challenging party show that the potential juror is biased or cannot be impartial. Kusek v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 4 Neb. App. 924, 552 N.W.2d 778 (1996).