Opinion ID: 702508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Law enforcement connections

Text: 48 Garza also argues that the court should have excused a number of jurors who were acquainted with government witnesses or members of law enforcement. Garza complains about Ms. Scheiner, who was a friend of Jim Parker, a potential government witness from the district attorney's office 14 ; Ms. Casas, who had several distant connections to law enforcement 15 ; Mr. Robles, who had friends who worked for law enforcement and knew a government witness 16 ; Mr. Guevara, who worked at the Cameron County tax office and knew several witnesses 17 ; Mr. Medill, who was friends with several police officers that he saw every three or four months; and Mr. Moreno, who was friends with a law enforcement witness but had not seen him in two years. The district court specifically found that Guevara, Medill and Moreno would not bring any pro-law enforcement bias to their jobs as jurors and denied Garza's challenges to all six of these jurors. 49 Again, we review the court's determination of a juror's actual bias only for manifest abuse of discretion. Bryant, 991 F.2d at 174. After carefully reviewing the voir dire record, we conclude that the court did not err.