Opinion ID: 6324152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Biased-Juror Issue

Text: After the close of argument but before deliberations, a juror emailed the district court expressing concern about her safety “between today’s decision and sentencing,” because she had heard a threatening comment Cumbie directed to Primeaux in open court. Cumbie moved to strike the juror for bias, arguing the email showed the juror -12- had decided the case prior to deliberations. The court denied the motion but then questioned the juror in an in camera hearing. After the court answered the questions posed by the juror in her email, the juror stated that she could fairly and impartially deliberate the case with her fellow jurors. Cumbie then renewed his motion to strike the juror, arguing that the juror is extremely fearful of my client and what can happen in her words between today’s decision and sentencing. I don’t know how that could not affect her in her deliberations and make her less likely to reasonably consider a not guilty verdict while deliberating. Noting that any fear the juror had would “have her leaning toward . . . a not guilty verdict as opposed to [guilty],” the court denied the motion. On appeal, Cumbie argues the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to replace this juror with an alternate. “If the record shows a legitimate basis for the district court’s decision to retain the juror, there is no abuse of discretion. . . . [A] district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to excuse a challenged juror after the juror affirmed [her] impartiality and the judge favorably evaluated [her] demeanor.” United States v. Dale, 614 F.3d 942, 959 (8th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, “a jury must refrain from premature deliberations in a criminal case.” United States v. Gianakos, 415 F.3d 912, 921 (8th Cir. 2005). But here there is no evidence of premature deliberations among the jurors. Nor is there evidence the concerned juror held any prior bias against Cumbie or acquired extrinsic evidence outside the courtroom. Id. at 923. Her email to the district court came after the final day of trial, when all evidence had been presented. Even if the email raised an inference that the juror had formed a preliminary opinion before going into deliberations, “there is nothing wrong with a juror being influenced by prior testimony.” Id., citing United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1079-80 (8th Cir. 2001). Having observed the juror’s demeanor during the in camera hearing, the -13- district court credited her assurance she could fairly and impartially deliberate with her fellow jurors. The court not abuse its discretion in denying Cumbie’s motion to strike.