Opinion ID: 2735768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Selection Principles

Text: 8 Case: 13-10254 Date Filed: 09/22/2014 Page: 9 of 15 Before discussing defense counsel Cunningham’s performance, we review jury selection principles under federal and Florida law. A criminal defendant has a right to an impartial jury, and a prospective juror who lacks impartiality must be excused for cause. See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 85-86, 108 S. Ct. 2273, 2277 (1988). To exclude a prospective juror for cause, a party “must demonstrate that the juror in question exhibited actual bias by showing either an express admission of bias or facts demonstrating such a close connection to the present case that bias must be presumed.” United States v. Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073, 1102 (11th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added); see also Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S. Ct. 940, 945 (1982). The burden is on the challenger to show the prospective juror has actual bias, so as to raise the presumption of partiality. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 1643 (1961). Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a trial court’s seating of a juror even where the juror gave conflicting or ambiguous answers during voir dire about his ability to be impartial. See, e.g., Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 103840, 104 S. Ct. 2885, 2892-93 (1984); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 801-03, 95 S. Ct. 2031, 2037-38 (1975). Under Florida law, the test at trial “for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render his verdict solely upon the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given to him by the 9 Case: 13-10254 Date Filed: 09/22/2014 Page: 10 of 15 court.” Lusk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1984). The trial court must grant a party’s motion to strike a prospective juror for cause if there is “any reasonable doubt” as to the juror’s impartiality. Singer v. State, 109 So. 2d 7, 23 (Fla. 1959). In the post-conviction context, however, Florida has an actual bias requirement. See Carratelli v. State, 961 So. 2d 312, 323 (Fla. 2007). “[W]here a postconviction motion alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise or preserve a cause challenge, the defendant must demonstrate that a juror was actually biased.” Id. at 324 (emphasis added). To meet the actual bias standard, “the defendant must demonstrate that the juror in question was not impartial-i.e., that the juror was biased against the defendant, and the evidence of bias must be plain on the face of the record.” Id.