MICHAEL M. GILBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Michael Gilbert was convicted of bribery of a public servant, but the Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a juror for cause who had stated she might not be able to judge the case fairly due to her friendship with county police officers.
The trial court's refusal to excuse the juror was error. When any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a juror possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial verdict, the juror must be excused.
[1] A trial court errs by refusing to excuse a juror for cause when the juror expresses doubt about their ability to render an impartial verdict.
[2] When reasonable doubt exists as to a juror's impartiality, the juror must be excused.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a juror possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial recommendation, the juror must be excused.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for juror impartiality that requires excusal when reasonable doubt exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with bribery of an assistant director of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department. During voir dire, a prospective jur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Juror Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction for bribery of a public servant, § 838.015, Fla. Stat. (1991). Based upon the trial court’s erroneous refusal to excuse a juror for cause, we reverse and remand for new trial.
The object of the alleged bribery was an assistant director of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department. The juror in question, the mother of two young children, was a friend and neighbor of several Dade County policemen. During voir dire, the prospective juror initially stated that she could sit as an impartial juror despite her friendship with county policemen. However, during the follow-up cross-voir dire, when defense counsel inquired further as to her relationship with these officers, the following exchange occurred:
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Are you willing to have that relationship affected in return for the public duty of serving on this jury or would you prefer not to serve on this jury because of that?
JUROR: I would prefer not to.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You are very honest.
So, do you think that you should not serve on this jury because perhaps you might not be able to judge this case fairly?
JUROR: Yes.
The defense, pointing out to the court that the juror herself had stated she might not be able to judge the case fairly, challenged the juror for cause. The state objected. The trial judge observed that the juror was concerned about a number of problems including baby-sitting expenses, but declined to sustain the challenge for any of the reasons advanced by the defense. Defendant’s counsel, having used all his peremptory challenges, then asked the court to grant one additional peremptory challenge. This request was likewise denied.
Considering the juror's own observation that her friendship might prohibit her from rendering an impartial verdict, the trial court’s refusal to excuse this juror was error. When any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a juror possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial recommendation, the juror must be excused. Garcia v. State, 570 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see Blye v. State, 566 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Salazar v. State, 564 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Clearly, the juror’s statement created a reasonable doubt as to her impartiality.
For this reason, the defendant’s conviction is reversed with directions to award him a new trial. The remaining claims do not necessarily require our disposition and therefore they are explicitly left undecided.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Overton v. State, 757 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…s possessing that [*539] state of mind which will enable him [her] to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at the trial.” See Singer, 109 So. 2d at 23-24; Hill, 477 So. 2d at 556; Gilbert v. State, 593 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In this case, where several of the jurors who served on this jury had knowledge of otherwise inadmissible3 and highly prejudicial information about the appellant (i.e.…
-
Taylor v. State, 790 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…inciple has been established to assure such impartiality: when any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a proposed juror possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial verdict, the proposed juror must be excused. See Gilbert v. State, 593 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and cases cited therein. Our review of the seventeen pages of the jury selection transcript which relate to the challenged juror reveals that the trial court made a Herculean effort to rehabilitate a lost cause. Without reiterati…
Authorities Cited
- Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Salazar v. State, 564 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Melvyn M. Garcia v. State, 570 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Arlington Blye v. State, 566 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)