P., JR., BRIAN, MTR. OF

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the juror “never affirmatively stated that she could be impartial”
• finding on direct appeal that after a juror indicated bias, the silence of the panel in response to a question to the group “d[id] not indicate that [the juror] could be impartial”
• finding on direct appeal that after a juror indicated bias, the silence of the panel in response to a question to the group “d[id] not indicate that [the juror] could be impartial”
• reversing and remanding for a new trial where a juror stated that she “might be able to” put aside her feelings, she would “want to put [her] personal stuff aside, but [she] honestly [didn’t] know if [she] could,” and she “would try to be fair,” because those statements were equivocal
• “This Court has found implied bias in those extreme situations . . . where repeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)
• “[A] response of “I’ll try” is not an unequivocal statement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).