The doctrine of implied bias was first mentioned by the United States Supreme Court in a concurring opinion in Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, (1982). The Sixth Amendment provides citizens accused with the right to an impartial jury. Justice O’Connor, in her concurring opinion suggested that jurors who are actual employees of the prosecuting agency, close relatives of a participant to the trial or the offense, or witnesses to the offense might have an implied bias that would prevent them from being impartial jurors.
However, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas have adopted the implied bias doctrine. Instead, where there have been allegations of juror partiality, courts have held the remedy is a hearing to determine whether the juror had any actual bias.
On November 17, 2010, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the implied bias doctrine in Texas in Uranga v. State. In Uranga, a juror in felony possession of methamphetamine case was watching a video of the defendant evading the police when the juror realized the yard the defendant drove through to evade the police was the defendant’s own yard. The trial court questioned the juror outside the presence of the jury. The juror stated the fact that the defendant had driven through the juror’s yard would not affect the juror’s decision in the case.
On appeal, the appellant claimed that he was denied his right to an impartial jury because the juror in question was allowed to remain on the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the appellant’s claim that bias could be implied. The Court noted that the proper procedure was to question the juror to determine if there was an actual bias, and rejected the theory that bias must be implied to jurors.
Written by Benson Varghese. ♦ Contact Benson.♦ Have Res Ipsa Blog delivered to you.
