DOJ-OGR-00021766.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page24 of 35 granted a challenge for cause of the juror had he given truthful answers, is an abuse of discretion. Demonstrated bias in the responses to questions in voir dire may result in a juror being excused for cause. The necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors is obvious, if this process is to serve its purpose. The failure to provide truthful answers is itself a proper challenge for cause. After the hearing, the court held that the juror was entitled to use his “life experiences” in deliberations, even though the life experiences mirrored testimony at trial and were particular to the charges against Maxwell. But "[w]hen a juror has life experiences that correspond with evidence presented during trial, that congruence raises obvious concerns about the juror's possible [implied or inferred] bias." U.S. v. Torres, 128 F.3d at 47-48; see Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150, 1158- 59 (10th Cir. 1991). That bias went unexplored at the hearing resulting in the failure of the Court to take proper steps to screen the juror for bias after the verdict. A conviction will only be reversed if the District Court abused its discretion by incorporating an error of law, or resting its decision on a clearly erroneous factual finding. Here, both the Court’s finding that Juror 50 was credible (a clearly erroneous factual finding), and its ruling that Juror 50’s truthful answers during voir dire would not have established a valid basis for cause (an error of law), meet that standard for abuse of discretion. DOJ-OGR-00021766