In Utah and across the United States, the right to an impartial jury is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system. Both the U.S. Constitution (Sixth Amendment) and Article I, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution guarantee that an accused person will be tried by an impartial jury. This principle ensures that no person is judged unfairly due to preconceived biases or partiality among jurors.
To uphold this right, Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 18(e) allows attorneys to challenge potential jurors for cause if they appear biased. This crucial process, known as “voir dire,” is designed to uncover juror biases and ensure fair trials.
Too bad most Utah trial courts don’t allow any meaningful voir dire conducted by attorneys.
How Bias is Presumed in Jurors
During jury questioning, any statement or response that indicates bias creates a presumption that the juror is not impartial. If a potential juror demonstrates bias, the law mandates that they must be dismissed—unless the presumption of bias is successfully rebutted.
Rebutting a Presumption of Bias
In cases where a potential juror exhibits signs of bias, the burden falls on the prosecution (or the opposing party) to rebut the presumption by proving that the juror can still be fair and impartial.
According to West v. Holley, 2004 UT 97, ¶ 14, 103 P.3d 708, a juror may only serve if the judge is “convinced the juror can and will act impartially and fairly.”
Juror’s Own Assurance Is Not Enough
A juror’s mere claim that they can remain fair is not enough to override evidence of bias. Utah courts do not accept “bare assurances” from jurors about their ability to be impartial. Since a juror cannot objectively assess their own biases, their self-proclamation of fairness does not suffice.
If a judge fails to remove a juror despite clear evidence of bias, it is considered an abuse of discretion. However, for an appeal to succeed, the defendant must also prove that the failure to remove the biased juror caused actual prejudice in the trial’s outcome.
Even if a court improperly allows a biased juror to serve, the defendant must still demonstrate that this decision negatively impacted the trial. Allowing a bias or partial juror to serve on a jury is an abuse of discretion by the trial court judge.
A conviction delivered by a jury that included a biased juror presumes prejudice. However, for this presumption to apply, the defendant must have already used all their peremptory challenges (a limited number of juror dismissals available to attorneys without needing a reason). In most criminal cases you get 3 peremptory strikes where you can strike the juror for any reason that is not a protected reason. Like race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
If peremptory challenges remain unused, the appellate court may not automatically presume prejudice.
One common misconception is that law enforcement officers are automatically disqualified from jury service due to bias. However, Utah courts have ruled that law enforcement officers are not “per se” biased and may serve as jurors if they can demonstrate impartiality.
Case Study: State v. Eric Alan Taylor (2025 UT App 14)
In State v. Taylor, a jury convicted the defendant of Sodomy on a Child, resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. On appeal, Taylor challenged the court’s refusal to remove Juror 14 and Juror 26, both of whom demonstrated partiality during voir dire.
Juror 14: A Pattern of Bias in Sexual Abuse Cases
Juror 14 admitted to handling “about 20” sexual abuse cases as a law enforcement officer and stated that he had “never had any cases that were factually innocent.” Furthermore, he expressed a willingness to extend the same credibility to other law enforcement officers in court.
Court’s Ruling: The Utah Court of Appeals ruled that Juror 14 demonstrated bias against the presumption of innocence, which is a constitutional right of every defendant. The court found that the trial judge failed to sufficiently rehabilitate the juror or remove him for cause.
Juror 26: Favoring Law Enforcement Testimony Over the General Public
Juror 26 openly stated that he believed “law enforcement testimony has a greater weight than general public testimony.” When questioned further, he confirmed that he would likely give more credibility to a police officer’s testimony simply because of their position.
Court’s Ruling: Since the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of bias, and the trial judge did not remove Juror 26, the appellate court found this to be an error.
Juror 14’s Voir Dire Statements
Defense Counsel: Have you ever had cases where someone was falsely accused of a crime?
Juror 14: No, I have never had any cases where the accused was factually innocent.
Prosecutor: Can you set aside your experience as an officer and judge this case based solely on the evidence?
Juror 14: Yes.
Court’s Ruling: The appellate court found that Juror 14’s previous experience influenced his view of criminal defendants, creating an unfair bias that was not sufficiently countered.
Juror 26’s Voir Dire Statements
Juror 26: I think law enforcement testimony carries more weight than testimony from the general public.
Prosecutor: Even though all witnesses take the same oath to tell the truth, do you still feel that way?
Juror 26: Yes.
Court’s Ruling: The court determined that Juror 26 displayed an inherent bias in favor of law enforcement witnesses, which compromised the impartiality required for a fair trial.
The State v. Eric Alan Taylor case serves as a cautionary example of how improper jury selection can lead to reversible errors on appeal. Voir dire is an essential process that ensures defendants receive a fair trial by a truly impartial jury.
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges in Utah, it is crucial to work with an experienced defense attorney who understands the complexities of jury selection, voir dire, and juror rehabilitation to safeguard your constitutional rights.
At Provo Criminal Defense, we specialize in ensuring fair trials by challenging biased jurors and advocating for your rights. Contact us today for a consultation on your case. Call/TXT Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Jake Gunter (801) 373-6345 for a free consult.
