Opinion ID: 759576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal of Jurors for Just Cause

Text: 11 Beard contends that there was no just cause for dismissing either juror. Although the court gave reasons for removing Juror No. 1, it did not give any reason for removing Juror No. 8. 12 The district court did focus on Juror No. 1's emotional state in its decision to remove both jurors. It stated: I am concerned about juror number one who was literally crying here ... and who indicated that she had not slept all last night and that it was the most humiliating thing to ever happen to her ... which tells me she may not have perspective on this. The court went on to state, however, that, while most of it focuses on jury [sic] number one, undoubtedly because someone apparently fueled the names when one and eight were there this morning against--to draw number eight into it, that other jurors are aware of it, and I think that there is good cause to excuse both. The court later stated, It was very difficult to unravel exactly what the dynamics were between the two, but certainly it was, I think a major distraction to the deliberations of the jury and seriously distracted their attention from consideration of the case before them. It is apparent, therefore, that the court was concerned with the effect of the overall situation on the jury's ability to concentrate on the case. 13 Although just cause generally focuses on sickness, family emergency, or juror misconduct, it embraces all kinds of problems--temporary as well as those of long duration--that may befall a juror during jury deliberations. Murray v. Laborers Union Local No. 324, 55 F.3d 1445, 1452 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1847, 134 L.Ed.2d 948 (1996); see also McFarland, 34 F.3d at 1512 (While appellant correctly asserts that 'just cause' encompasses primarily physical incapacity or absence due to religious observance, the excusing of a juror who had previously advised the court and counsel of his lengthy vacation plans does not constitute an abuse of discretion. ). The decision to excuse a juror is committed to the district court's discretion and we must affirm unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment in reaching its conclusion after weighing the relevant factors. United States v. Egbuniwe, 969 F.2d 757, 761 (9th Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). Because the district court was in the best position to evaluate the jury's ability to deliberate, and the incident clearly was affecting the jury, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding just cause to remove both jurors. United States v. Ross, 886 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.1989). 14 Before the court decided to excuse the jurors, Beard argued that both jurors had indicated that they could set aside their personality problems and that the problems would not affect their ability to make a decision based on the evidence. However, [a] juror's assurance that he or she can render a fair and impartial verdict is not dispositive. Egbuniwe, 969 F.2d at 762. The court observed both jurors' demeanor and testimony and was in the best position to determine whether they would be able to deliberate adequately. See Ross, 886 F.2d at 267. Its decision to excuse them was not an abuse of discretion.