My Mother The Juror

The Kentucky Supreme Court has reversed a criminal conviction because the mother of the County Attorney was not struck for cause.

A peremptory challenge was exercised but the issue was preserved

Later, Appellant used a peremptory strike on the juror in question and noted, with specificity, the name of the petit juror he would have stricken, if the juror in question had been removed for cause. As such, Appellant…properly preserved the issue for appellate review.

The court

Appellant argues that the mother-daughter relationship between the . . . juror and the County Attorney rendered the juror objectively biased and partial. If that relationship standing along was the sole factor, this case would be a closer call – and that question remains for another day. However, after reviewing the video of Appellant’s voir dire (as quoted above), it is not the familial relationship in and of itself that tainted this juror. Rather, the juror was tainted when she became privy to the bench session on the motion to strike her for cause. By explaining the reasoning behind that motion in the juror’s presence, defense counsel made the juror aware that her daughter had conducted the preliminary hearing in this case. As such, counsel telegraphed disqualifying information to the juror, regardless of whether she had previously been qualified. Since the.juror was not involved in the felony prosecution, and never discussed cases with her daughter, without defense counsel’s statements, she would have had no  reason to know that her daughter had ever been ‘involved in this case.

As it is, the juror was made aware that her daughter had once stood in an adversarial position against Appellant on these charges. The Juror listened as defense council expressed doubt that she could be unbiased, .and suggested that she was under  pressure to claim impartiality. Meanwhile, the prosecutor expressed his belief that the juror could be impartial.  The total effect of this juror being privy to the bench session acted to undermine “the mental attitude. ‘ . .. of appropriate indifference” that is required of a juror at trial. 

(Mike Frisch)