Background

• Caldwell was convicted of felony murder and armed burglary in Florida; appellate court reverses and remands for new trial.
• During voir dire, Juror E asked why a defendant would not want to testify; defense challenged juror for cause.
• The trial court denied the cause challenge, and defense used a peremptory strike on Juror E.
• One other objectionable juror served on the jury; Caldwell renewed the objection before the jury was sworn.
• The court applied a standard that a juror must be excused for cause if any reasonable doubt exists about impartiality; abuse of discretion found.
• The court held that Juror E’s comments created reasonable doubt about impartiality and that the juror was not rehabilitated; the convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877 (Fla. 2001) (juror must be excused for cause when impartiality is doubtful; broad discretion in voir dire)
• Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 2000) (impartiality concerns; standard for challenge for cause)
• Mitchell v. State, 862 So.2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (jurors with biased attitudes toward not testifying; some should be stricken for cause)
• Segura v. State, 921 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversible error when juror’s views about testifying imply lack of impartiality)
• Shannon v. State, 770 So.2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversible error where juror questions credibility due to not testifying)
• Bell v. State, 870 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (silence of juror on panel does not overcome preexisting impartiality concerns)
• Bryant v. State, 601 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1992) (rehabilitation of jurors not required when grounds for challenge exist)
• Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312 (Fla. 2007) (to prove reversible error, defense must use peremptory challenge and show adverse juror served)