Opinion ID: 782740
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Excuse Juror Taylor

Text: 42 In the morning before the first day of the trial on which evidence was presented, Juror Beulah Taylor overheard a television broadcast about Zuern's trial. Specifically, she overheard a version of what had happened, why [Zuern] was in [jail] in the first place,[and] that he had been there previous[ly]. Taylor told the court that she could be fair, but would rather not serve. Zuern's counsel did not immediately request that she be removed, but the following morning, after viewing the broadcast at issue, he moved for a mistrial, or, in the alternative, to remove Taylor from the jury. Taylor was brought before the court a second time, and she again indicated that she could be fair. The trial court declined either to excuse Taylor or to declare a mistrial. 43 When reviewing a federal district court's actions in a case of alleged juror misconduct, this court reviews for abuse of discretion under all the circumstances. United States v. Shackelford, 777 F.2d 1141, 1145 (6th Cir.1985). Again, as we are conducting habeas review of a state decision, we must focus on the narrow [review] of due process, and not the broad exercise of supervisory power that [a federal appellate court] would possess in regard to (its) own trial court. Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 641-42, 94 S.Ct. 1868. 44 In United States v. Rugiero, 20 F.3d 1387 (6th Cir.1994), we listed four points to consider in cases of possible improper juror contact: (1) when a defendant alleges that an unauthorized contact with a juror has tainted a trial, a hearing must be held; (2) no presumption of prejudice arises from such a contact; (3) the defendant bears the burden of proving actual juror bias; and (4) juror testimony at the ` Remmer hearing' is not inherently suspect. Id. at 1390. Both the Ohio Supreme Court and the federal magistrate judge in this case found that Zuern had waived the claim for juror misconduct, as Zuern's counsel did not request Taylor's removal after the first hearing on the issue. However, the trial court allowed Zuern's counsel to raise the juror misconduct objection the next day, and ruled on the merits that Taylor would remain on the jury. Reaching the merits, we find no jury misconduct error warranting reversal. The trial court properly held a Remmer hearing, and concluded — based on Taylor's assurances — that she could serve as a fair and impartial juror. Zuern has not met his burden of proving actual juror bias.