State of Maine v. Kevin Carey, 214 A.3d 488

Kevin Carey was tried for multiple counts of child sexual assault based on recurring abuse of a female relative; a jury convicted him on 15 counts and the court imposed lengthy concurrent prison terms.
During public voir dire a prospective juror abruptly left the courtroom saying, “No, I’m not staying for this” and “This is ridiculous.” The court asked remaining jurors if that event would affect their impartiality; 34 responded yes and were excused.
During individual voir dire, Juror 183 disclosed knowledge that a friend had been sexually abused (a priest) and initially answered hesitantly when asked whether that history or the earlier outburst would affect impartiality.
Carey moved to strike Juror 183 for cause and separately moved to strike the entire venire based on pervasive bias from the outburst and audible reactions in the pool; the court denied both motions after individual voir dire and excused other biased jurors.
The trial proceeded, the court granted a few acquittals on some counts, and the jury convicted on the remaining charges; Carey appealed arguing erroneous denials of his challenges for cause and of striking the venire.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carey)	Held
Whether Juror 183 should have been struck for cause	Juror 183 credibly stated he could be impartial; follow-up clarified his answers and supported seating	Juror 183 was equivocal and influenced by prior knowledge and the courtroom outburst, so he could not be impartial	Court affirmed: trial court’s individualized voir dire sufficed; no clear error in finding impartiality
Whether the entire venire should be stricken	The departing juror’s remarks were limited and not extraordinary; individualized follow-up cured any concern	The pool was pervasively biased after the outburst and audible reactions, warranting striking the whole venire	Court affirmed: circumstances were not “extraordinary” to presume bias; denial of venire strike proper

State v. Ayotte, 207 A.3d 614 (Me. 2019) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Simons, 169 A.3d 399 (Me. 2017) (review standards for juror impartiality and voir dire)
State v. Diana, 89 A.3d 132 (Me. 2014) (deference to trial court finding of juror impartiality)
State v. Durant, 861 A.2d 637 (Me. 2004) (trial court’s role in assessing juror credibility during individual voir dire)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. 2010) (trial court best positioned to observe juror demeanor and credibility)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 1984) (weight given to juror’s most fully articulated statements)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (appellate courts’ deference to trial judge on juror bias credibility)
Hunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1992) (implied-bias doctrine is rare; requires extraordinary circumstances)
United States v. Kechedzian, 902 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2018) (objective test for presumed juror partiality)