It's a slow start of the week here in California. Nothing published from the Ninth Circuit. Only one published opinion thus far from the California Court of Appeal, and that one's not especially worth reading -- that is, unless you're keenly interested in finding out whether someone who tried to help the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians open a casino gets paid. (Summary: No.)
So we can start out the week on the slow side as well. And maybe just give what might otherwise seem to be an easy reminder to trial courts when they're deciding whether or not to bounce a juror for cause.
Because you'd think that a trial court would totally understand that it should definitely excuse a juror who says that she had the victim in an alleged rape case as a student of hers three years ago and has positive recollections of her. Especially when the defense challenges her and says, yep, she needs to be replaced.
But apparently not every trial court would similarly so conclude.
And, as a result, now we need to do an entire new trial.
Just replace the juror with an alternate. It's that easy. Pretty darn clear, even.
