State v. Lee
1993 WL 409840, 625 So. 2d 645 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Prior service on a jury in a similar criminal case is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to challenge a juror for cause. To succeed on such a challenge, a defendant must make a specific showing of actual bias on the part of the individual juror.
Facts:
- In November 1990, as part of an undercover police operation, Nathaniel Lee sold 'crack' cocaine to Officer Tony Gant.
- The transaction was recorded via a body microphone worn by Officer Gant.
- Another officer, Lennis Landry III, conducted surveillance and confirmed that Lee, nicknamed 'Casper,' was present at the scene.
- After his arrest in July 1991, Lee gave an unrecorded statement to Officer Landry admitting he sold cocaine and naming his suppliers.
- At trial, Lee's defense was misidentification, and he demonstrated a significant physical deformity—one arm being six to eight inches shorter than the other—which Officer Gant had not noticed during the drug buy.
- Jury selection for Lee's trial took place the day after several members of the same jury pool had served on a jury that convicted another defendant in a separate but similar narcotics distribution case.
- The same Assistant District Attorney prosecuted both the previous day's case and Lee's case.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Nathaniel Lee by bill of information with distribution of cocaine in a Louisiana state trial court.
- During jury selection, Lee made a blanket challenge for cause against any juror who served on a similar drug case the prior day, which the trial judge denied.
- Lee then challenged individual jurors for cause on the same ground; after these were denied, he used peremptory challenges until they were exhausted.
- A jury was empaneled, which included jurors who had served on the prior case.
- The jury found Lee guilty as charged.
- The trial court denied Lee's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to twenty years at hard labor.
- Lee (as Defendant-Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, with the State of Louisiana as Plaintiff-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a defendant's challenges for cause against jurors who served on a similar criminal case the previous day with the same prosecutor, where the defendant does not demonstrate the jurors' actual bias?
Opinions:
Majority - Doucet, J.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a challenge for cause against jurors who recently served in a similar case unless the defendant demonstrates actual bias. Standing alone, prior jury service, even in similar cases, does not support a challenge for cause per se. The court's review of the voir dire examination of the challenged jurors revealed no actual bias. Therefore, the trial court's decision to deny the challenges was not an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of its broad discretion in ruling on juror qualifications.
Dissenting - Cooks, J.
Yes. The trial court should have excused the challenged jurors for cause because the circumstances created an unacceptably high probability of implied bias, which threatened the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury. The combination of the jurors' immediate prior service in an almost identical case, a guilty verdict in that case, and the same prosecutor's repeated references to that prior service created an unfair advantage for the state. In such a situation, the court should infer bias as a matter of law without requiring the defendant to prove actual bias, as the process itself fails to keep the scales of justice 'nice, clean and true between the state, and the accused.'
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high legal standard required to prove juror bias and overturn a conviction on that basis. The majority's holding affirms the traditional doctrine that a defendant must demonstrate 'actual bias,' granting significant deference to the trial judge's discretion during voir dire. In contrast, the dissent argues for an 'implied bias' standard in circumstances where the potential for prejudice is exceptionally high, suggesting that the integrity of the process itself can be compromised even without explicit proof of a juror's partiality. The case illustrates the tension between judicial efficiency, especially in jurisdictions with smaller jury pools, and the paramount constitutional right of a defendant to a fair and impartial jury.
