Court Opinion

ID: 9429435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:46.107221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.593010
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmun,
with whom Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor join,
concurring.
I agree with the Court that the proper inquiry in this case is whether the plaintiffs had the benefit of an impartial trier of fact. I also agree that, in most eases, the honesty or dishonesty of a juror’s response is the best initial indicator of whether the juror in fact was impartial. I therefore join the Court’s opinion, but I write separately to state that I understand the Court’s holding not to foreclose the normal avenue of relief available to a party who is asserting that he did not have the benefit of an impartial jury. Thus, regardless of whether a juror’s answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court’s option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-trial hearing at which the movant has the opportunity to demonstrate actual bias or, in excep*557tional circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209, 215-216 (1982); id., at 221-224 (O’Connor, J., concurring).