Opinion ID: 1262085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potential Juror Lane

Text: Potential juror Lane was in the second panel of potential jurors. During the questioning of Lane, Lane stated that his son had been badly beaten by police, and that he preferred not to talk about it. Judge Darrah requested that he discuss it at a side-bar, at which Lane explained that his son had been stopped by police on suspicion of drug possession, and that the police beat him so badly that he was unconscious and in the hospital for a week. His son was not charged with any crime arising from that event. The following dialogue then took place: The Court: I see. Is there anything about that that you think would cause you to be unfair to either of these two sides here? Prospective Juror Lane: I believe so, Judge. The Court: You believe you might Prospective Juror Lane: Because it's pending in the back of my mind, you know, there's some wrong, people and there's some good people. The Court: Well, both sides here are entitled to a fair trial, and that would require you to sit and listen to the testimony of the witnesses that are presented in this case and the exhibits that you're asked to look at and make a decision based simply on that and put aside this terrible experience you had. Could you do that? Prospective Juror Lane: Well, I have had experience too with the police. I was locked up for a rental car because they didn't have the papers in it. The Court: I see. Prospective Juror Lane: And they handled me with force, you know, that I think they shouldn't have did [sic]. The Court: Do you think that thatdo you think that you could be fair and open-minded in this case? Prospective Juror Lane: I'm not really sure, Judge. The Court: Okay. Well, I appreciate your honesty and we'll excuse you. You can go back to the jury room. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 105-07). After the parties had finished questioning the rest of the potential juror panel, Judge Darrah again held a sidebar to discuss challenges. Brodnicki's attorney raised an objection to Lane's dismissal for cause, to which Judge Darrah stated that Lane's demeanor clearly, clearly indicated that he didn't think he could be fair. Judge Darrah asked Brodnicki's attorney why he had not objected sooner since Lane was now gone. Brodnicld's attorney responded: [I]t's not so much a problem that wethat you struck Lane for cause. The problem we have is that we feel you should have struck the other [two] jurors for cause too. Judge Darrah explained that if a juror can assure us under oath that the juror can be fair and impartial regardless of the impediment that's being discussed, that if a juror says that, that they qualify to serve as a juror. Judge Darrah also said: I think Mr. Lane told us he couldn't be fair and impartial. I think it's as easy as that. Brodnicki then exercised his remaining peremptory challenges and the government exercised five of its six peremptory challenges. The jury was sworn in, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found Brodnicki guilty on both counts.