We had a situation this morning that hopefully won't happen again but I'd like to be better prepared if it does. We picked a jury Monday and we were scheduled to start (and did start) trial this morning. A juror called the trial judge last night and told him that she didn't recognize the defendant at first but she now realizes that she knows the defendant and his family. During a hearing this morning, she stated that she could be fair but warned that "I have to live out in that community... (where the defendant lives). She said it would hard for her to live with herself if she found the def guilty but that she would base a verdict upon the evidence. My ADA asked the judge to remove her (not sure that it could legally be done but I would have probably made the same request as a knee-jerk reaction) but the defense objected and the judge left her on the jury. We're in trial now. Has anybody run into a similar situation and, if so, how was it handled? Any ideas on how you would approach a situation like this? Thanks.

Seat at least one and preferably two alternate jurors.

Depending on the case, and how long it is expected to take, many judges won't seat alternates just on the off-chance something like this might happen.

I know that Wes, but after a situation like that, judges become more willing to seat alternates. It seems like when you have them you don't need them, and vice versa.

Nonetheless, that is the only solution I know to that problem. At least you can say you tried to get the judge to seat an alternate...

We had a similar situation, Mike, in our last felony trial. Although we said the names of the victims and witnesses in VD, the juror did not recall she was related to one until well into the trial. Fortunately, we had an alternate. That Judge has suggested that we begin showing pictures of the witnesses via powerpoint to the panel because we have seen this issue before.

That would be alot of work, but I guess if it kept the trial from going south it would be worth it.

Our judges generally seat alternates, Greg, but nobody thought of it this time I guess. I'll try to do some research after the trial is over but I seem to remember that deeming a juror incapacitated or whatever is fairly difficult, particularly when the defense is not agreeing. So I don't know if an alternate would have helped in this instance. At any rate, at least we got a guilty verdict last night and punishment starts this morning. During the victim's testimony at g-i, all female jurors (including the "problem" juror) and one male juror were crying. Her testimony was very believable and it was obvious that her testimony was gut-wrenching... not something she just made up (as opined by the defense). Thanks for the responses. I'll let y'all know how it all turns out.

[This message was edited by ML on 08-31-07 at .]

Maybe your juror proved that she was not disqualified (although biased). Just one more reason why allowing an 11-1 verdict in a criminal case can make sense.

Well, it turned out pretty good. The perv ended up taking 5 to do and waived any appeal. He is 68 years old and probation-eligible (had elected for the jury to assess punishment). One of my folks saw the "remembering" juror walking down the hall crying last night after they found him guilty. Also, one of the defense lawyers mucked up the record by spilling his guts that he had gotten in the case late and basically had done no prep. However, about 10 of the jurors met with us afterward and said they would have given him 20... But that's only 10 of the 12 so we were probably headed for a hung jury. They understood why we did what we did. It's really good to know though that at least a number of these jurors not only believed our young victim (touching of the breast and genitals on the outside of clothing) but were also prepared to give her a large measure of justice. Man, it's good doing the Lord's work...