Which statement about challenges in voir dire is accurate?

Which statement about challenges in voir dire is accurate?

• A. The number of peremptory challenges varies by side
• B. Peremptory challenges require a reason; cause challenges do not
• C. Each side has the same number of peremptory challenges and an unlimited number for cause
• D. Each side has no peremptory challenges and cause challenges are unlimited

Answer: (C)

In voir dire, there are two ways to shape the jury: peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Peremptory challenges let each side strike potential jurors without giving a reason, but they are limited in number and typically must be the same for both sides. Challenges for cause target a juror for a stated reason (like bias or disqualification), and there is no fixed cap on how many such challenges can be used, because the reason must be legally valid. Putting those together, the statement that each side has the same number of peremptory challenges and an unlimited number for cause accurately reflects how these tools are organized. The other options miss key points: one asserts the peremptory counts vary by side, which isn’t the standard setup; another reverses which type requires a reason, which is incorrect; and the last option wrongly says there are no peremptory challenges at all, while cause challenges are unlimited.

In voir dire, there are two ways to shape the jury: peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Peremptory challenges let each side strike potential jurors without giving a reason, but they are limited in number and typically must be the same for both sides. Challenges for cause target a juror for a stated reason (like bias or disqualification), and there is no fixed cap on how many such challenges can be used, because the reason must be legally valid. Putting those together, the statement that each side has the same number of peremptory challenges and an unlimited number for cause accurately reflects how these tools are organized.

The other options miss key points: one asserts the peremptory counts vary by side, which isn’t the standard setup; another reverses which type requires a reason, which is incorrect; and the last option wrongly says there are no peremptory challenges at all, while cause challenges are unlimited.