I am wondering why the focus is on whether or not the prosecutor should have agreed to have the juror struck?

I didn't read the COA decision, so I might be missing an important fact, but the CCA decision did not say whether or not the prosecutor even argued against a challenge for cause? Or how strenuously they argued it, or if they were really more worried about their own strategy than fighting for the defense's strikes?

It's the judge's decision, and the questions were answered honestly by the juror-prosecutor--there was no hiding the ball. It's certainly clear the defense attorney did not ask the right questions and didn't bother to read the questionnaires because they, too, knew that juror-prosecutor personally and thought she was a better juror than someone else who was eventually struck.

In that situation, how many of us would have interrupted and insisted that the prosecutor be struck for cause (thereby declaring a bias upon another person in our profession that we are sworn to NOT have, and this one in particular's reputation said she didn't have) even though there was no legal or factual basis upon which the State would want that person struck?

It is too much to expect a prosecutor to force a defense attorney to use a better strategy when they refuse to do so! That's why they have bar cards and duties to their clients. This was a STRATEGY decision, based upon their personal knowledge of that juror, and it didn't get their client off in this case--that's trial, no guarantees.

So the next time a defendant's DWI strategy is to say they really only had two drinks and the intoxilyzer, SFST's and all other evidence are wrong, am I supposed to step in at trial and tell the defense that it is a bad strategy and insist they come up with something better? Or, I'll step in during their voir dire and tell the jury they forget to mention what a heavy burden "reasonable doubt" is--because that's so basic any effective defense attorney would drill it into the ground? I guess I could cross-examine my own officer because I've actually taken the time to watch the entire video?

Okay, I'm off my rant now.....I got a little sarcastic there, but the affidavits signed by the defense attorneys in that case and their conflicting testimonies just really teed me off.

(That being said, I think the judge should have stricken the prosecutor and avoided the whole shebang).

I don't think the prosecutors did anything wrong, and I agree with you to the extent that I don't think it's fair to suggest that the prosecutors who didn't agree to the strike in this case did something wrong. In fact, you bring up a very good point about the possibility that the prosecutors may not have argued strenuously against the challenge. I can even see a scenario where the judge didn't give the prosecution a chance to agree because he cut off all debate by simply saying "she said she could be fair". And the judge should certainly be held responsible for his ruling.

In fairness to the judge, he was faced with a witness who had no actual bias and appeared to be an otherwise qualified juror. Still, it was his discretionary call, and I've seen judges strike perfectly good jurors for less reason. A future holding recognizing implied bias would certainly go a long way to making sure that judges uphold a challenge for cause in similar circumstances.

However, going forward in light of this case I do think it's reasonable for JB to suggest that prosecutors take the more prudent approach and agree to a challenge for cause in similar circumstances for the reasons JB mentions.

In Oklahoma, attorneys are automatically prohibited by law from serving on juries. I guess that takes the heat off the trial attorney from having to make this call.

I could totally be fair in a trial. I have had to exercise enough discretion in my career, at both ends of the range of punishment, that I truly could be fair. However, I would never expect a defense attorney to believe that, just as I would never (well, extremely rarely) believe a defense attorney who said the same thing. Perhaps Oklahoma's rule is not a bad one.

I'd like to think that I can be fair, and I'd really like to serve on a jury to get that perspective. But at the same time, I think a prosecutor's knowledge of the rules of evidence might gain them some insight that could make any person biased.

For example, I had one of our office's prosecutors in my last panel. She said she could be fair and I don't doubt her. But I talked to her afterwards (she wasn't reached)and she said that she knew the defendant had a prior felony conviction because of the fact that we didn't voir dire on probation. Can anyone here say with complete confidence that they wouldn't consider that at all in guilt/innocence? It might be tough.

Interestingly enough, I ended up with a prosecutor as my foreperson in that trial, though he wasn't from our office.