N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 270.20: Trial jury; challenge for cause of an individual juror

§ 270.20 Trial jury; challenge for cause of an individual juror.

1. A challenge for cause is an objection to a prospective juror and

may be made only on the ground that:

(a) He does not have the qualifications required by the judiciary

law; or

(b) He has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from

rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the

trial; or

(c) He is related within the sixth degree by consanguinity or

affinity to the defendant, or to the person allegedly injured by the

crime charged, or to a prospective witness at the trial, or to counsel

for the people or for the defendant; or that he is or was a party

adverse to any such person in a civil action; or that he has complained

against or been accused by any such person in a criminal action; or that

he bears some other relationship to any such person of such nature that

it is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict; or

(d) He was a witness at the preliminary examination or before the

grand jury or is to be a witness at the trial; or

(e) He served on the grand jury which found the indictment in issue

or served on a trial jury in a prior civil or criminal action involving

the same incident charged in such indictment; or

(f) The crime charged may be punishable by death and the prospective

juror entertains such conscientious opinions either against or in favor

of such punishment as to preclude such juror from rendering an impartial

verdict or from properly exercising the discretion conferred upon such

juror by law in the determination of a sentence pursuant to section

400.27.

2. All issues of fact or law arising on the challenge must be tried

and determined by the court. If the challenge is allowed, the court

must exclude the person challenged from service. An erroneous ruling by

the court allowing a challenge for cause by the people does not

constitute reversible error unless the people have exhausted their

peremptory challenges at the time or exhaust them before the selection

of the jury is complete. An erroneous ruling by the court denying a

challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible

error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at

the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective

juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection

of the jury is complete.