A challenge for cause is a legal tool that allows attorneys to request the removal of a potential juror based on specific reasons that suggest they may not be able to weigh the evidence and make an unbiased decision. This challenge can be made if the attorney believes that the potential juror's biases or prejudices would unfairly influence their judgment in the case.

One common example of a challenge for cause is when a potential juror has a personal connection to the case or the parties involved. For instance, if a potential juror has a close relationship with one of the parties, such as a family member or a close friend, it might be argued that their personal ties would make it difficult for them to remain impartial. In such cases, an attorney may request the removal of that juror through a challenge for cause.

另一個因故迴避的情況是，當潛在陪審員表達了可能影響其公正性的強烈觀點或信念時。如果陪審員對案件的某一方抱持強烈的偏見，或持有與審判相關的成見，律師可以辯稱，陪審員的觀點會妨礙其做出客觀的決定。透過因故迴避，律師旨在確保陪審團遴選過程的公平公正。

It's important to note that challenges for cause must be based on specific and valid reasons. Attorneys must provide evidence or arguments as to why they believe a potential juror should be excluded from the jury. The judge then determines whether the challenge is valid and decides whether to remove the potential juror from the jury pool.

In addition to challenges for cause, attorneys also have another tool at their disposal known as peremptory challenges. These are limited in number and allow attorneys to remove potential jurors without providing a specific reason. However, they cannot be used to discriminate against potential jurors based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics.

因故迴避是法律體系的重要組成部分，旨在維護陪審團遴選過程中的公平公正原則。透過允許律師排除可能存在偏見或成見的潛在陪審員，因故迴避確保了案件雙方都有公平的機會向公正的陪審團陳述各自的論點和證據。