I am immensely skeptical that this is helpful. The judge deciding the challenges for cause is usually a white male, as is everyone in the courtroom in a positio

I am immensely skeptical that this is helpful. The judge deciding the challenges for cause is usually a white male, as is everyone in the courtroom in a position of power except for my client and — occasionally — the bailiff. If one of the members of the panel (often called a venire when referring to the pool from whom jury members will be selected) stares at my client or sneers or gives some other indication of bias, it is unlikely I will be able to get him to admit his racial bias during voir dire. Because voir dire responses are typically the only evidence we have to base any challenge for cause on, that means it is unlikely that I will be able to remove any given potentially racist member... and certainly not all of them. That's where peremptory challenges come in, and — as the article states — the defense usually gets more of them (in some jurisdictions the defense doesn't get more peremptory challenges but does benefit from a mandate to "liberally grant" defense challenges for cause). As a result, it is the defense that is losing more here. I have a hard time imagining how that will benefit minority defense clients.