Todd Jeffrey Rogers v. Ohio

This case concerns the standard for determining juror bias, a question of constitutional importance that has split federal circuits and state supreme courts. A juror who is actually biased against the criminal defendant cannot sit on the jury. The seating of that biased juror violates the defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury. A defense attorney who fails to protect that right renders ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, a juror expressed several biased opinions during voir dire. The juror admitted he would favor the child-accuser, and he presumed the defendant was guilty “because we’re here.” The prospective juror never disavowed those opinions, and he failed an attempted rehabilitation. According to the lower courts this was not enough to establish bias, and if it was, the juror was rehabilitated. At times during voir dire the juror remained silent, or the venire “indicated affirmatively,” when the group was asked collectively whether they could follow the law in various respects. The Question Presented: Whether a prospective juror who admitted bias can be rehabilitated through silence or group answers in response to group questions.