Opinion ID: 1985427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Juror Candor Cases

Text: ¶ 44. A defendant's motion for a new trial made on the grounds that a juror lacked candor during voir dire presents a second scenario within which questions of juror bias are raised. To successfully gain a new trial on this basis, a defendant must satisfy the circuit court that (1) a juror incorrectly or incompletely responded to a material question on voir dire and if so that (2) it is more probable than not that under the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular case, the juror was biased against the moving party. Wyss, 124 Wis. 2d at 726. Only the second prong directly involves considerations of bias. See id. at 730. ¶ 45. In Wyss, we upheld the circuit court's finding that the challenged juror was not biased. We quite clearly agreed with the circuit court that the evidence from voir dire did not support a finding of actual bias, or in the terminology we adopt today, that the juror was subjectively biased. Id. at 732. However, our discussion in Wyss leaves unclear whether either the circuit court or this court on review considered whether the juror's incorrect answers revealed objective bias. We did state that there were no facts and circumstances from which bias may be inferred, but the sense in which we made this statement is unclear. ¶ 46. In Delgado, where we reversed the circuit court's determination that a juror was not biased, this court much more explicitly discussed both subjective and objective bias. We concluded that it was more probable than not, that under the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular case, the challenged juror was biased against the moving partya conclusion under the terminology we adopt today that the juror was objectively biased. Id. at 286. ¶ 47. In that case, we first noted that the circuit court found no evidence of actual bias, the equivalent of a finding that the juror was not subjectively biased, writing that [i]n this case the circuit court found that Juror C. was honest, acted in good faith and did not purposely give an incorrect or incomplete answer. Id. at 282. ¶ 48. However, we reversed the circuit court because it had failed to find inferred biasunder the terminology adopted today, the circuit court failed to engage in a consideration of whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the juror was objectively biased. In determining whether a person is biased, a circuit court is supposed to consider the following factors: (1) did the question asked sufficiently inquire into the subject matter to be disclosed by the juror; (2) were the responses of other jurors to the same question sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that an answer was required; (3) did the juror become aware of his or her false or misleading answers at anytime during the trial and fail to notify the trial court? Id. at 283 (citing Wyss, 124 Wis. 2d at 731). We held that the circuit court failed to consider these factors, and had it done so, would have had to conclude that the juror was biased, for the answers to each of the three questions was affirmative. The answers to these questions revealed that the juror was objectively biased. ¶ 49. Finally, we also considered jurors' lack of candor in Messelt. In reviewing the circuit court's order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, we wrote that [the defendant's] argument [was] that bias must be implied from the fact that prior to trial, [the jurors] possessed certain information about Messelt's prior criminal activity. Id. at 270. While we used the term implied, the presence of such bias having always been a question of law, we reviewed only evidence of the jurors' subjective bias, the presence of which was factual in nature. We upheld the circuit court's finding that the jurors could be impartial, noting that the circuit court believed that the two jurors could be impartial based upon its assessment of the jurors' credibility and the nature of the knowledge they had. Our discussion of bias in Messelt, with respect to the two jurors who had knowledge of the defendant's criminal record, reviewed only the question of whether the jurors were subjectively biased. Neither the circuit court nor this court explicitly considered whether either juror was objectively biased.