Opinion ID: 2284813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudice of the Affected Jurors

Text: Turning to Appellant's second theory of juror misconduct, no bias can be discerned from the coincidental development of high blood pressure among two jurors. It is worth noting that the two jurors to have experienced high blood pressure fell on opposite sides of the verdict. As that split suggests, there is no cause to believe a juror with high blood pressure is more or less sympathetic to a doctor's treatment of high blood pressure during pregnancy. If suffering from high blood pressure undermined a juror's impartiality in this case, Appellant had the opportunity to identify such biased jurors in voir dire. Not having done so, Appellant cannot fairly attack the impartiality of jurors who develop high blood pressure, or suffer from its symptoms, after the onset of trial. Cf. Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779, 795 (Ky.2003) (A motion to excuse a juror for cause ordinarily must be made during voir dire). Appellant has not explained why such jurors would disfavor doctors who treat high blood pressure related to pregnancy or would otherwise unfairly pre-judge the matter.