Opinion ID: 4520225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Panel

Text: “We review the district court’s determination whether to strike an entire jury panel for manifest abuse of discretion.” United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838, 842 (11th Cir. 1998). To demonstrate error in the denial of a motion to strike the panel, the defendant must overcome the presumption of juror impartiality by a showing of “actual bias.” United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 955 (11th Cir.1990). In Khoury, this Court reviewed the district court’s denial of a motion to strike a jury panel in a drug-related case, where a potential juror said that her son had been charged with a crime and murdered in a drug-related incident, and she 2 Case: 19-12084 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 3 of 5 cried before the other jurors. Id. The district court removed the juror but did not strike the panel. Id. This Court affirmed, holding the defendants had not demonstrated actual bias—that is, “either an express admission of bias, or proof of specific facts showing such a close connection to the circumstances of the case that bias must be presumed”—and noted this was not a case where the juror’s remark constituted an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants or related to their knowledge of the case. Id. The district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by denying Joseph’s motion to strike the jury venire because he did not show actual bias or the presumption of bias. As with Khoury, the jurors’ statements did not reflect an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Joseph or specific knowledge of the case. See id. Rather, all of the jurors stated they could be impartial, which results in a presumption of impartiality that Joseph has not overcome. None of the empaneled jurors made any concerning statements about the Parkland shooting or firearms that could be construed as expressed admissions of bias. Unlike the juror’s statement in Khoury about her son’s connection to drugs in a drug-related case, the jurors’ comments are at best only connected to Joseph’s case through the involvement of the same firearm, the AR-15—an aspect tangential to Joseph’s failure to obtain the proper licenses. See id. 3 Case: 19-12084 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 4 of 5