Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mistrial on Basis of Jury Taint

Text: Prior to the commencement of voir dire, a prospective juror asked a bailiff if this was the case which had started the previous year. Apparently, this juror had heard about the trial on the radio. In response, the trial court dismissed the entire group of prospective jurors who were in the courtroom. Appellant moved for a mistrial, arguing that prospective jurors from the dismissed group might discuss the case with other potential jurors still on the panel. A mistrial is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when manifestly necessary. Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). Appellant's claim is highly speculative. There is no indication that any of the dismissed jurors discussed the case with other panel members. The trial court made every effort to avoid any possible taint by dismissing the entire group. A mistrial was not warranted. See Key v. Commonwealth, 840 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Ky. App.1992) (affirming denial of a mistrial where movant's evidence was nothing more than speculation that the juror knew [the defendant]).