again, I would offer the info available is not sufficient to make a definitive assessment, you are basing yours on sound reasoning for the most part, I’ll give you that, sorry if I could care less if the turd fried years ago and this was uncovered or not by the Judge.
I would also ask, What would Judge Roy Bean do?
from the Judge’s decision..
Following an evidentiary hearing, she found that the jury foreman affirmatively misrepresented his employment status during voir dire which gave rise to a presumption of bias that was not dispelled at the hearing. (At the time of voir dire, the eventual foreman of the jury failed to reveal that he had been laid off at the law firm he had been working for because of his then-pending application for employment at the FBI.)
—
what is voir dire?
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/schools/lessons/79_dueprocess_voir.html
fyi - voir dire is part of the process of juror selection and where jurors can be challenged by attorneys and dismissed based on statements made by the juror in the selection process.
does the fact, in and of itself, that the juror in question did not adequately divulge his complete situation work and otherwise effectively prevent him from serving in a fair and impartial manner on the jury?
many here say it did, the Judge said it did.
I would offer , in the case of a crime of this nature and violence, what juror would not inwardly harbor hidden biases and perhaps act on them when presented with the facts of the offense.
more than likely, this will be re-tried, at hundreds of thouands of dollars of additional expense to the state, that is if evidence and individuals involved in the apprehension and prosecution are still alive..