Opinion ID: 213844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Properly Dismissed for Cause

Text: A trial judge may exclude for cause any juror who is unable to render impartial jury service. 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c)(2). Our review of the trial judge's ruling with respect to a challenge for cause is deferential because the trial judge had the opportunity to assess the credibility and demeanor of the potential jurors during voir dire. United States v. Brodnicki, 516 F.3d 570, 574 (7th Cir. 2008). If the record shows some legitimate basis for the decision to replace a juror, there is no abuse of discretion. United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666, 689 (7th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The district court had a legitimate basis for its dismissal of Juror # 9. The juror had informed the court that she communicated with Lear on an almost daily basis as part of their work and that she regarded her as friendly. We have found that this sort of familiarity is an appropriate basis for dismissal. See, e.g., United States v. Sandoval, 241 F.3d 549, 552 (7th Cir.2001) (during kidnapping trial, district court properly removed juror after juror informed judge that she recognized the witness after seeing him on a previous day). Additionally, Lear was one of Hicks's key witnesses and was testifying about his character, one of the main issues Hicks identified as his defense. Given the importance of Lear's testimony and the extent of her communications with Juror # 9, the district court's decision to dismiss her falls well within the range of discretion afforded to trial judges in issues of juror replacement.