Opinion ID: 1696930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the Defendant Was Denied a Fair Trial Because Four Jurors Were Openly Biased

Text: ¶ 15. Jordan asserts that he was denied his right to a fair trial because four of the jurors that were impaneled were unable to fairly and impartially consider the evidence. The four complained of are Marcus Turner, Loretta McGee, Curtis Moore, and a female dressed in red. ¶ 16. After the jury was impaneled and before the trial began, Turner informed the trial court that he did not feel as if he could focus on the trial. The trial court informed him that all the other potential jurors had been dismissed, so Turner should do his best to focus as long as he could. The trial judge said that she would check on him during the trial. Jordan asserts that during the course of the trial, Turner had a demeanor that reflected his inability to focus on the evidence presented. However, the record does not reflect that Turner had problems focusing on the trial once it began. ¶ 17. As for McGee, the trial court asked her several follow-up questions in chambers regarding McGee's family's connections to Jordan's family. McGee confirmed that one of her family members was acquainted with one of Jordan's family members, but that this would not affect her ability to be fair and impartial. Jordan claims that the examination of McGee put pressure on this juror which in reality forced her to vote for a conviction. This confrontation in chambers placed her in a position of overacting [sic] in a negative way toward the Defendant. Jordan's appellate counsel offers no support from the record to demonstrate that McGee was pressured by the conversation in chambers. ¶ 18. Jordan further asserts that the jury panel was tainted by the foreperson of the jury, Moore, who is a retired law enforcement officer who had previously had a civil conflict with Jordan's father. This information was not known at the time of trial, as Walter Jordan only discovered that Moore was on the jury after the trial had commenced and was unable to communicate this background to counsel in a timely fashion. Therefore, this information was only disclosed in Jordan's post-trial motion for a new trial. ¶ 19. If a juror takes an oath that he or she can be fair and impartial in fulfilling the duties of a juror and the trial court is satisfied by that oath, then he or she may serve on the jury despite a preconceived opinion as to guilt or innocence of the accused. Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (Rev. 2002). In this case, voir dire was conducted in which the venire was asked whether or not they could be fair and impartial, and whether or not they could give Jordan the presumption of innocence. The venire was asked whether or not they or their relatives were friends of Jordan or his relatives. The venire was not specifically asked whether or not they had prior negative interactions with Jordan or his relatives, but they were given an opportunity to volunteer relevant information that had not been elicited by the trial court and the attorneys. The record reflects that Moore did not provide any information about a prior relationship or interaction with Jordan's father during the voir dire. Since the jury was impaneled after the voir dire, during which Moore took an oath to be a fair and impartial juror, this Court does not believe that reversal is required because Moore sat as a juror and as the foreperson in this case. ¶ 20. With regard to the female dressed in red, Jordan asserts that she continuously cried and made emotional gestures during the trial. The record reflects that she may have been crying at one point during the trial. Although defense counsel brought this to the attention of the trial judge, defense counsel did not request that this juror be replaced with an alternate, nor did defense counsel move for a mistrial. Jordan argues that the court should have sua sponte granted a mistrial because the female dressed in red was emotionally upset. ¶ 21. This Court has held that it is within the trial court's discretion whether or not to grant a mistrial and this Court will not find error absent an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 971 So.2d 581, 590-91 (Miss.2007) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial when the prosecution purportedly made an inappropriate statement) (citations omitted); Brent v. State, 632 So.2d 936, 941-42 (Miss.1994) (finding that the trial court properly denied a motion for mistrial where a juror discussed the case with other jurors during recesses) (citations omitted). In this case, defense counsel made no motion for mistrial because of this juror's conduct. Furthermore, the record does not show that the emotional state of the female dressed in red was so disruptive and prejudicial to the trial that the trial court abused its discretion by not sua sponte declaring a mistrial. ¶ 22. Moreover, Jordan's appellate counsel cites no authority in support of his contention that these four individuals should not have been permitted to sit as jurors. As reflected in the discussion of the previous issue, it is a longstanding principle of law that [i]f an appellant fails to support [his] allegation of error with argument or authority, this Court need not consider the issue. Pierre v. State, 607 So.2d 43, 48 (Miss.1992) (citations omitted).