The following shall be good causes for challenge to any person called as a juror or alternate juror, on the trial of any indictment: (1) That he was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment; (2) that he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused; Provided, if a juror or alternate juror shall state that he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court shall thereupon proceed to examine, on oath, such juror or alternate juror as to the ground of such opinion; and if it shall appear to have been founded upon reading newspaper statements, communications, comments or reports, or upon rumor or hearsay, and not upon conversations with witnesses of the transactions or reading reports of their testimony or hearing them testify, and the juror or alternate juror shall say on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence, the court, if satisfied that such juror or alternate juror is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in its discretion, admit such juror or alternate juror as competent to serve in such case; (3) in indictments for an offense the punishment whereof is capital, that his opinions are such as to preclude him from finding the accused guilty of an offense punishable with death; (4) that he is a relation within the fifth degree to the person alleged to be injured or attempted to be injured, or to the person on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or to the defendant; (5) that he has served on the petit jury which was sworn in the same cause against the same defendant and which jury either rendered a verdict which was set aside or was discharged, after hearing the evidence; (6) that he has served as a juror in a civil case brought against the defendant for the same act; (7) that he has been in good faith subpoenaed as a witness in the case; (8) that he is a habitual drunkard; (9) the same challenges shall be allowed in criminal prosecutions that are allowed to parties in civil cases.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Bjorklund (2000)
neb · cites it 15×
“Bjorklund’s assignment of error in this regard is without merit. *454 4. Jury Selection and Sequestration (a) Assignments of Error On appeal, Bjorklund alleges that the trial court also erred in (1) failing to declare Neb.”
State v. Rodriguez (2007)
neb · cites it 10×
“He contends that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (2) (Reissue 1995), these jurors should have been *935 excused.”
State v. Trail (2022)
neb · cites it 9×
“” 14 While Trail acknowledges Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (3) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Hessler (2007)
neb · cites it 5×
“*496 Hessler argues that each potential juror should have been struck for cause pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (2) (Reissue 1995), which states that good cause to challenge a juror includes that “he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the…”
State v. Quintana (2001)
neb · cites it 5×
“’s statements that he would “try” to issue an impartial verdict upon the law and evidence presented fall short of that which is statutorily required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Hilding (2009)
neb · cites it 7×
“" However, Hilding argues that "discharged" as used in § 29-2004 should be read as referring to cause pursuant to the jury challenge statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (Reissue 2008), and that illness is not considered cause for discharge under § 29-2006.”
State v. White (1993)
neb · cites it 6×
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it (1) overruled defendant’s motion to suppress statements made to a jail trustee and to law enforcement officers; (2) overruled defendant’s motions to hire a public opinion pollster and to change venue; (3)…”
State v. Jacob (1998)
neb · cites it 4×
“Jacob relies upon Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2006 (Reissue 1995), which provides that there is good cause for striking a prospective juror when "(2) .”
State v. Ellis (1981)
neb · cites it 4×
“Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2006 (Reissue 1979) provides that it is a good cause for challenge of a juror who has "formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused .”
State v. Burchett (1986)
neb · cites it 5×
“In pretrial motions Burchett moved (1) to dismiss the information for lack of presentment or indictment of a grand jury, (2) to preclude “death qualification” of the jury, (3) to preclude the use of peremptory challenges to exclude persons opposing the death penalty, (4) to…”
State v. Huff (2017)
neb · cites it 4×
“It reasoned that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2006 and 29-2007 (Reissue 2016), a “strike” or challenge to a potential juror for cause “shall be made before the jury is sworn, and not after- ward,” and thus it was imprecise to say M.”
State v. Williams (2018)
nebctapp · cites it 3×
“See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (Supp. 2017) ; State v.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006(2) — 3 cases
State v. Rodriguez (2007)
neb
“He contends that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (2) (Reissue 1995), these jurors should have been *935 excused.”
State v. Hessler (2007)
neb
“*496 Hessler argues that each potential juror should have been struck for cause pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (2) (Reissue 1995), which states that good cause to challenge a juror includes that “he has formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the…”
State v. Bjorklund (2000)
neb
“Bjorklund’s assignment of error in this regard is without merit. *454 4. Jury Selection and Sequestration (a) Assignments of Error On appeal, Bjorklund alleges that the trial court also erred in (1) failing to declare Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006(3) — 7 cases
State v. Bjorklund (2000)
neb
“Bjorklund’s assignment of error in this regard is without merit. *454 4. Jury Selection and Sequestration (a) Assignments of Error On appeal, Bjorklund alleges that the trial court also erred in (1) failing to declare Neb.”
State v. Trail (2022)
neb
“” 14 While Trail acknowledges Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006 (3) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. White (1993)
neb
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it (1) overruled defendant’s motion to suppress statements made to a jail trustee and to law enforcement officers; (2) overruled defendant’s motions to hire a public opinion pollster and to change venue; (3)…”
State v. Burchett (1986)
neb
“In pretrial motions Burchett moved (1) to dismiss the information for lack of presentment or indictment of a grand jury, (2) to preclude “death qualification” of the jury, (3) to preclude the use of peremptory challenges to exclude persons opposing the death penalty, (4) to…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006(4) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.