Opinion ID: 852583
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror's Acquaintance with Victim's Sister

Text: Stephenson contends that jury foreperson Michael Fox's acquaintance with Kim Seibert, the sister of victim Kathy Tyler, undermined Fox's ability to remain fair and impartial. The right to a jury trial includes a fair trial by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 471, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965). In certain circumstances, [t]he failure of a juror to disclose a relationship to one of the parties may entitle the prejudiced party to a new trial. Godby v. State, 736 N.E.2d 252, 256 (Ind. 2000) (citing Haak v. State, 275 Ind. 415, 417, 417 N.E.2d 321, 326 (1981); Barnes v. State, 263 Ind. 320, 330 N.E.2d 743 (1975); Block v. State, 100 Ind. 357, 1885 WL 4222)). To obtain a new trial based on a claim of juror misconduct, the defendant must demonstrate that the misconduct was gross and likely harmed the defendant. Id. Furthermore, the defendant must present specific, substantial evidence establishing that a juror was possibly biased. Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind.2002) (quoting Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119, 1130 (Ind.1988)). During voir dire, all prospective jurors were asked about any possible acquaintance with the victims, the victims' families, or any other trial witnesses. Fox did not disclose any relationship with Seibert. Seibert testified in post-conviction that she had recognized Fox at Stephenson's trial but did not know whether Fox recognized her. At some point during the trial, Fox was informed by his wife that Seibert was Fox's children's Sunday school teacher, and Fox realized that he had met Seibert. He did not inform the trial court of this fact. When he was asked about his relationship to Seibert at post-conviction review, Fox stated Oh, I just knew Miss Kim. You know, I didn't know what her name was or anything else, but, you know, when she told me that that is  I put two and two together. You know, I just knew her name was Seibert or Seibert or however you pronounce it. Although Fox should have informed the court of his acquaintance with Seibert when he discovered it, Stephenson has presented no specific evidence that Fox was biased and has made no showing that Fox's nondisclosure of this casual connection to Seibert had any effect on Fox's performance as a juror. In short, the post-conviction court's conclusion that juror Fox's relationship with Seibert does not show bias or a predisposition to convict was not clearly erroneous. Indeed, it seems clearly correct.