Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

1,157 chars

“The Constitution guarantees both criminal and civil
litigants a right to an impartial jury.” Warger v. Shauers,
135 S. Ct. 521, 528 (2014). We have held that a juror was
“actually biased” where the juror’s answers in voir dire
indicated that he or she cannot decide the case impartially.
United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.
2000). In “extraordinary” circumstances, we have also found
“implied bias.” Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 981 (9th
Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520,
527–28 (9th Cir. 1990). Implied bias is found “in those
extreme situations ‘where the relationship between a
prospective juror and some aspect of the litigation is such that
it is highly unlikely that the average person could remain
impartial in his deliberations under the circumstances.’ ”
Fields, 503 F.3d at 770 (quoting Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 527).
We have recognized that implied bias can be found “where
the juror is apprised of such prejudicial information about the
defendant that the court deems it highly unlikely that he can
exercise independent judgment even if the juror states he
50                   RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text