Opinion ID: 182826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: dismissing jurors for cause

Text: Lindsey contends that the district court committed reversible error in dismissing two jurors for cause. The district court dismissed prospective jurors 8 and 10. A district court's decision to excuse a juror under these circumstances is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995)). We need not reach the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion because the error, if any, does not warrant reversal. Even if the district court had abused its discretion, the dismissal of two jurors did not result in a prejudiced jury panel. In United States v. Mendoza, we held that the district court had abused its discretion by making no effort to determine whether excluded jurors' beliefs regarding the state of the law at issue would impair their performances on the jury. 157 F.3d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, defining the core question as whether defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury ha[d] been violated, id. at 734, we found that the dismissal of two jurors did not result in a presumptively partial jury panel. Because the defendant presented no evidence that any of the seated jurors were unable or unwilling to properly perform their duties, the dismissals did not warrant reversal. Id. Similarly, Lindsey has presented no evidence that the seated jurors in his case were partial or otherwise failed to perform their duties in any way. His claim fails.