Opinion ID: 2338704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The merits of appellants' motions.

Text: Notwithstanding the deferential standard of review, appellants contend that the judge's refusal to disqualify Juror No. 9 deprived them of their right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. They argue, in substance, as follows: 1. Juror No. 9 disregarded the trial judge's instructions by discussing the case with Harn (and, to some extent, by making the comments overheard by the deputy clerk); 2. Juror No. 9's premature disparagement of Peay's planting defense demonstrates that he prejudged the case and failed to keep an open mind; 3. The possibility that Harn chortled or giggled after Juror No. 9 ridiculed that defense during the conversation in Harn's car constituted expert confirmation of the juror's premature rejection of the planting defense; and 4. Juror No. 9 was untruthful when he denied that he had discussed the case with Harn, and this deception compounded his disregard of the court's instructions and undermined his trustworthiness and impartiality. We agree with appellants that the conduct of Juror No. 9 was unfortunate. Nevertheless, we do not believe that appellants' contentions, individually or in the aggregate, [13] demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to disqualify the juror, either before verdict or thereafter.