Court Opinion

ID: 9672089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:48:52.853717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.255746
License: Public Domain

Irwin, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent, not simply because the juror used the phrase “I’ll do my best.” Rather, I dissent because of the entire calculus of facts regarding this issue. This is a felony criminal matter, wherein the accused’s defense is that Goswick, this juror’s friend, allegedly asked Krutilek to hide the car from her ex-husband and eventually told Krutilek to keep the car. This defense made Goswick’s credibility crucial. Keeping this factual backdrop in mind, we are presented with a candid juror who states that he has known Goswick for a year, works with her, considers her a friend, and when asked by the court whether his friendship would sway him, can only respond, “I’ll do my best.”
As accurately expressed by the majority, the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. See, U.S. Const, amend. VI; Neb. Const, art. I, § 11. I also agree that the standard of review for a court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a juror is whether the court abused its discretion in retaining or rejecting the juror. See State v. Coffman, 227 Neb. 149, 416 N.W.2d 243 (1987).
When analyzing the relevant facts involving the juror, I believe the majority unduly concentrates on the juror’s state*866ment that he would “do [his] best” to set aside his friendship with Goswick and fails to give adequate consideration to the other key facts in analyzing the trial court’s denial of Krutilek’s motion to dismiss the juror.
The majority notes that the trial court refused to remove the juror because the trial judge concluded the juror “had indicated that he would set aside his friendship and attempt to decide the case based on the evidence.” While I agree that a trial judge should be afforded appropriate deference in such matters because of his or her vantage point, the bill of exceptions herein records what the juror’s responses were, and they do not indicate that he would set aside his friendship and attempt to decide the case based on the evidence. The response by the juror was equivocal and ambiguous. If, somehow, we were able to enter into people’s minds, we would find that when some people say they will do their best, it means that they will put forth a Herculean effort to do so. On the other hand, we would also find that some persons who say they will do their best say so because they have serious reservations or hesitation in their own minds about their ability to do so. While further questioning may have revealed what the juror actually meant by his use of this ambiguous phrase, this was not done. Therefore, we are left not knowing what he meant.
In sum, the juror was honest and candid. However, he never expressly stated that he could set aside his bias regarding Goswick. The closest he could come was to say he would “do his best.” The U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to an impartial jury. The juror was telling the court that he was not positive he could be such a juror.
I would reverse, and remand for a new trial.