DOJ-OGR-00009724.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 32 of 66 that Juror Payton’s son had been injured in an explosion of a fire truck. /d. at 551. The district court denied a motion for a new trial without holding a hearing. J/d. The court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial instead of remanding for a hearing. /d. at 551-52. The court of appeals held that if “an average prospective juror would have disclosed the information, and that information would have been significant and cogent evidence of the juror’s probable bias, a new trial is required to rectify the failure to disclose it.” Jd. at 552. “Good faith,” said the court, was “irrelevant to the inquiry.” Id. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, concluding that it employed the wrong standard and erred in reaching the merits instead of remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. /d. at 556. As for the correct legal standard, the Court said that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Id. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider any outstanding issues and, assuming the judgment wasn’t reversed for other reasons, to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing applying the new legal standard. /d. The court emphasized that “/v/oir dire examination serves to protect [the fair trial] right by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors” and that the “necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors if [voir dire] 1s to serve its purpose is obvious.” /d. at 554. The Court did not expressly disavow the court of 2a DOJ-OGR- 00009724