Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/what-to-do-about-a-disabled-juror/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:33:39+00:00

Document:
You have spent countless hours preparing for trial. You have reviewed the evidence, met with your witnesses, anticipated every conceivable argument opposing counsel might make, and even bench-briefed them. But then one of the jurors gets arrested mid-trial.1 Now what?
This article is designed to prepare prosecutors for just such a situation by presenting the possible causes for juror disability and the remedies available at the different stages of the trial proceedings with citations to relevant statutes and caselaw. I hope it is helpful.
I know what dead means, but what about disabled?
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define the term “disabled.” However, a body of caselaw dealing with juror disability offers an outline of what constitutes a disability.
What happens if a juror is wrongly discharged?
What if you’re in misdemeanor court? The statutory provisions cited above apply to felony cases rather than misdemeanors. This then begs the question, What is to be done when a juror dies or becomes disabled in a misdemeanor case?
Should a prosecutor come across a case wherein a juror dies or becomes disabled, there is a useful body of statutory and caselaw laying out the procedures to be followed. Referencing these materials should provide a sufficient guide for dealing with such situations, but as oftentimes happens, the unpredictable will occur in trial.
1 Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
2 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.29(a).
3 Id; Tex. Gov’t. Code §62.201; Hill v. State, 90 S.W.3d 308, 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc).
4 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.29(c).
5 Scales v. State, 380 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
6 Id at 783 quoting Valdez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ ref’d (other citations omitted).
8 Timmons v. State, 952 S.W.2d 891, 894 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.).
9 Griffin v. State, 486 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (juror was arrested for driving while intoxicated during the lunch break, and the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the juror disabled based on his intoxicated state).
10 Owens v. State, 202 S.W.3d 276, 277 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, pet. ref’d).
11 Ricketts v. State, 89 S.W.3d 312, 318 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d).
12 Reyes v. State, 30 S.W.3d 409, 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (en banc).
15 Brooks, 990 S.W.2d at 286 (trial court’s decision to allow juror to continue to sit on case after being arrested for entering the courthouse with a gun was not an abuse of discretion where the juror said the arrest would not affect his ability to act as a juror).
16 Landrum v. State, 788 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (en banc) (trial court abused its discretion when it excused a juror based on his post-empanelment statement that he could not follow the punishment range).
17 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 33.011(a).
18 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 33.011(b).
19 See Scales, 380 S.W3d at 786 (trial court erred when it replaced a juror who would not deliberate with an alternate without ascertaining why the juror would not deliberate).
20 Hill, 90 S.W.3d at 315-16.
21 See, e.g., Landrum, 788 S.W.2d at 579 (case reversed where trial court found juror’s post-empanelment acknowledgement of bias against the law constituted disability); Solis v. State, 946 S.W.2d 591, 593-94 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.) (case reversed where trial court discharged juror as disabled based on post-voir dire burglary of juror’s home).
22 Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d 903, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (listing cases approving the use of fewer than six jurors in a misdemeanor case where the defendant consents).
23 Id. at 915 (approving of this procedure in dicta).
24 See id., addressing trial court’s granting of mistrial in misdemeanor case where trial court did not explore and exhaust all available alternatives); Hill, 90 S.W.3d at 315-16 (capital murder prosecution double jeopardy barred where mistrial granted [apparently] based on juror disability where trial court did not consider possibility of proceeding with 11 jurors).
25 Hill, 90 S.W.3d at 315-16.

References: v. 
 art. 36
 §62
 v. 
 art. 36
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 33
 art. 33
 v.