I have a situation where during voir dire, everyone was (of course) asked about any possible relationships with the defendant. Some knew him, admitted it, said they could be fair, etc. One man, however, didn't say a word. He is on my jury. I found out from someone after jury selection that he is friends with the defendant, and has said derogatory things about the victim.

Am I stuck?

Maybe he'll still convict. If not, maybe you'll end up with a hung jury and can call a mulligan.

I had a ringer on a jury once - not one that knew the defendant, but one that definitely had an agenda that was quite clear to the rest of the jury (they were quite upset with him). He hung up the jury and the case was eventually retried.

There oughtta be a law where someone like that is liable for the cost of the retrial caused by their failure to live up to their oath during voir dire.

There is a law. It's called Agg. Perjury.

He could also be held in contempt of court.

I read an article once where 2 jurors in Britain, during Voir Dire, said they could convict the def. if the crown proved it's case. During deliberations they agreed with the other 10 jurors that the crown had proven it's case BRD, but for religious reasons they could not find the def. guilty. They ended up having a mistrial. The judge found the two ladies in contempt, and locked them up for 30 days.

I usually bring that case up during voir dire, while stressing the need to be candid when answering questions. I never describe the place where this went down as Britain. I just tell them it was "another court," or "another jurisdiction."

The only reason I have doubts whether it was agg perjury was because the way I read it, the guy just said nothing at all (no affirmative statement under oath that wasn't true, but an omission of information that should've been disclosed). I agree contempt of court is definitely in order. With a fine at least equal to the amount of the jury service fees.