Which of the following is NOT a basis for which a juror must be excused pursuant to a challenge for cause?

A juror can be challenged for cause for various reasons that may impact their ability to serve impartially. The options provided relate to potential biases or conflicts that could prevent a juror from serving fairly.

When a juror is closely related to one of the parties involved in a case, it creates a personal connection that could impede their impartiality. This is a clear basis for excuse due to a potential conflict of interest. Similarly, if a juror has formed a preconceived opinion about the case, this could indicate bias, making it necessary to excuse them to ensure a fair trial. Additionally, if a juror refuses to answer a question based on self-incrimination, it undermines the jury's ability to fairly assess evidence and participate in the process, constituting another valid reason for a challenge for cause.

Serving on a previous jury for a similar case, however, is not an automatic disqualifier. While it may raise concerns about bias or pre-formed opinions, each case stands alone, and simply having served on a similar case does not inherently prevent a juror from being impartial or fair in assessing the current one. This can therefore be viewed as a less definitive basis for excusing a juror compared to the other three options listed.