Com. v. Marrero, L., 217 A.3d 888

Appellant Luis Enrique Marrero was found unconscious in a running vehicle with an open beer container and a partially smoked cigarette suspected to contain a controlled substance; Narcan was administered. He was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of DUI, third offense.
After the Commonwealth rested, Juror #14 reported that Juror #6 made a remark during jury discussion that "none of us are his peers," which Juror #14 interpreted as possibly referring to Appellant’s Latino heritage.
Juror #14 also reported a separate comment by Juror #6 suggesting she expected to deliberate the next day, which raised concern she had prematurely decided the case.
The court questioned Juror #6 in open court with counsel present. Juror #6 admitted the "none of us are his peers" comment but testified she meant she was much older than Appellant, denied racial bias, and assured she could be fair and impartial. The court did not further question her about the "deliberate tomorrow" comment and deemed that comment harmless.
Defense counsel moved to remove Juror #6 based on the peers comment but did not object to the court’s harmlessness finding regarding the other comment. The trial court denied removal, credited Juror #6’s explanation, and the jury returned guilty verdicts. Appellant appealed the trial court’s refusal to remove the juror.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to remove a juror who exhibited prejudice or premature determination	Marrero argued Juror #6’s comments evidenced racial bias or a settled mind, requiring dismissal	Trial court and Commonwealth argued the court properly questioned the juror, found her credible, and that the allegedly prejudicial comments were harmless or waived	The Superior Court affirmed: the claim that the juror was biased was preserved and rejected based on the trial court’s credibility determination; the premature-determination argument was waived for failure to object at trial

Commonwealth v. Carter, 643 A.2d 61 (Pa. 1994) (trial court discretion to discharge juror will not be disturbed absent abuse)
Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hosp. of City of Philadelphia, 58 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2012) (trial judge may remove a juror when facts show the juror's ability to perform is impaired)
United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333 (3d Cir. 1972) (standard for replacing juror with alternate when juror's duty is impaired)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 737 A.2d 238 (Pa. 1999) (trial court in best position to assess juror credibility when deciding removal)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 685 A.2d 96 (Pa. 1996) (trial court credibility determinations regarding juror impartiality entitled to deference)