not able to assist his attorney in question most jurors observe those jurors as they're being questioned or hear the trial court's instructions regarding those jurors and ultimately the alleged sleeping juror was removed from mr clinton's jur mr claiming his right to unanimous jury verdict on the th day of trial this this trial took place over i believe it's about seven days and one of the reasons was m r monroe mr clayton's health issues he was confined to a wheelchair a paraplegic i wouldn't use of his hands had a nurse that was attending him at all times during the trial there was often breaks that he had to take and the trial started in the afternoon on each day on the th day of the trial age or a little bail love with a number of the court that there was a juror that was in her opinion not being attentive during the trial seat injure or the after her the complaint or was questioned after the judge had told the parties to keep an eye on that alleged sleeping injure it was only after the juror was questioned and he expressed some of his thoughts on the state's case it's essential really what he stated was he did not believe there was much evidence up to that point except for d n a evidence otherwise i believe he says of the things he had to to a repetitive to him and it did not seem like much of a it was after that point that finally the state asked for the juror to be removed and eventually the court did remove him for cause over the objection of defense counsel for violation of a unanimous jury verdict almost a click has to show is that there was a reasonable possibility that the impetus for the jurors  here is that all those cases the thoughts of the juror had on the case occurred after deliberations had begun in the long ago the only case and the federal cases here the faults of that your became move for him to be removed which the court granted and then promoted an alternate juror to take his place in the all case that said that was there that was a denial of the cost efficient right to the jury verdict because the impetus for the state to remove him was because of the thoughts on the merits of the case and here that's what this juror now the court didn't solicit the information didn't directly ask and no one did he volunteered it on his the following day there's a discussion again where they go back in chambers at this point again his attorney says my client's presence away mr kling is not directly asked by the court with or not he agrees to wheelchair he has no use of his legs extremely limited use of his all that habit by a nurse has to take frequent exits from the courtroom to attend to bathroom needs and other medical needs and the court never directly asked him do you wave your presence to be there and there's also no clear reason given other than and i believe the prosecutor saying let's not question the st you're in front of anyone but the jury and the rest of the people are in there so i don't know why the courtroom cleared out the court room to allow mr clayton to remain in the courtroom to hear what was going on in the court gave specific instructions to for the parties to observe this juror also went before to bring him back in the next day said if i please submit written questions to me that you can pose beginning of the day and the nd time at the end of the day when he says i'm waving his presence mr clean is present in the courtroom and he says that on the th day when they talked to the the jury this dismissed he says is that it's an error that may have resulted in the guilty verdict of the five and here this is there were the very makeup of the jury that sat in judgment of him and deliberate it was affected by the air the juror who said something to the fact of i don't think the state has presented as much evidence i think this repetitious evidence was the one that was removed he fell asleep at times but he said he didn't felt the suffer very long was very intermittent he felt he had missed any evidence and up to the point he was questioned based on the complaining juror the observations from the core that the court shared with the parties and the observations of the prosecutor the prosecutor even said i don't think there's enough to read his journal for cause it was only after this  question when the state finally moved to have him removed for cause yes he did say i had formal sleep momentarily but he also made a comment about what he felt the value of the state's case was up to the point that he didn't again think there was much evidence other than the d n a and that much of the evidence was repetitive so if there's any other questions from the  and she was interviewed before the rd after musician trial and after that the judge also said that he had seen porto sleeping including during what appeared to be during the opening remarks  the prosecutor then stated i don't want to sleep in juror on this jury horner was interviewed after the rd afternoon session of trial but they didn't have morning sessions as you may recall because of the treatments for  quirke or the defendant's medical condition at that time and with no question pending portal volunteered that he did not think that people had presented much evidence other than the d n a evidence at a time time trial th for a background check that showed that this particular juror had lied about his criminal history during board year hear the evidence re phase the trial had ended before order was dismissed but the jury was not deliberating it unlike with the with o'connor writer deliberations in order to assure a fair trial the people moved to dismiss courtroom only after porter who had been sleeping during the course of the trial and after the ability back in or to express about the evidence during his interview was immaterial where the evidence reveals the trial had not been concluding was far from over at that time in importantly porter was not discharged at the time of the people's motion instead the triage is a trial judge asked the parties to keep order to see the appear to be sleeping during the rest of the trial the jury has a responsibility to determine the witness question credibility and their weight to be given testimony to resolve conflicts and hear the dense and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence the trial judge preserved defendant's right to a fair trial he really by replacing mr portal because he could not meet those responsibilities since even sleeping in the nd issue defendant claims his right to be present was violated or is not present chambers during the interview of interviews afor therefore he's forfeited this issue of course he has for player review because used to dismiss mr porto was close but defended misconstrues the closely balance prong to apply to the information elicited during the course order was interview which was not sworn testimony there it's the defense counsel one of his defense counsel suggest for some reason to bring in the chambers again if i my recollection is because i'm not he says bring her off from of all these people but it will all these people other than the people who are going to back into chambers asked again the attorneys is it your client's presence waived wogan defense in the courtroom and his attorney says yes on the th day of trial the next day when the dismissed your is question and the judge says in the open court with the defendant present we're going into chambers what does not say why and then while they're in chambers with that if i'm not being present ask to the state's case sure weak on this one i don't believe that that victim doesn't mean that they're necessarily making a decision on the case that they've said i'm going it but maybe the jury goes back for further deliberations as and is convinced it is no longer a holdout juror but they express their views on the merits of the case and then there's a reasonable possibility that the remove for cause and before the point based on their own observations the courts observations relate to the process here and it is a commerce observations and a question in the state explicitly said i don't think there's enough at this point to remove him for cause so it was what he said in that hearing that tipped the prosecutor off to say yes as the states can argue it's because he admitted to sleepin all but he also expressed his views on the merits of the case and there's no other reasonable possibility that's the reason i would say yes