October, 2025
Article
by Hannah Leavitt-Howell
The Utah Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reaffirming a litigant's right to a fair and impartial jury. See State v. Taylor, 2025 UT App 14, 564 P.3d 962.
In that case, a defendant raised a for-cause challenge to two prospective jurors: One was a law enforcement officer who had worked on cases like the defendant's with some frequency. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. That juror indicated that he had never arrested anyone who later turned out to be “factually innocent.” Id. ¶ 5. The other juror indicated that she favored the testimony of law enforcement officers. Id. ¶ 11.
The district court denied both motions to strike the jurors for cause, id. ¶ ¶ 8, 13, and then defense counsel (despite the earlier motions to strike for cause) elected not to use a peremptory strike. Id. ¶ 14. Accordingly, the jurors remained on the jury. Ultimately, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty. Id.
This case raises several questions worth analyzing: Wiry would a district court fail to grant a motion to strike when the prospective jurors showed such obvious biases? Why would defense counsel choose to use their peremptory strikes in a way that left biased jurors on the panel? hi the grand scheme of the trial, did two biased jurors actually make a difference when there were, presumably, six unbiased jurors to serve as a counterbalance?
The answers to these questions give meaningful insight into the efficacy of jury trials, the criminal justice system, and our legal system more broadly.
Pressures to Seat a Jury
Jury selection is an instance in which courts may save more time and resources by discarding jurors liberally rather than trying to stretch standards to make someone fit. Anyone with proximity to the voir dire process knows that district courts feel immense pressure to seat a jury as quickly and efficiently as possible. District court judges are tasked with resolving high-stress cases in a timely maimer with limited personnel, time, and physical space. Despite the limitations, we expect the court to get things right and move on to the next case as soon as possible.
Adding to this pressure, judges care about the often large costs this process imposes on prospective jurors - people who never asked to be involved in someone else's problems and are receiving essentially no compensation for the days of effort they will expend. Jury selection requires anywhere from a couple dozen to as many as several hundred citizens, depending on the case. Many of those people make significant sacrifices to appear for jury duty. They take off work, make childcare arrangements, find their way to an unfamiliar location, and wait for long periods without knowing when the whole experience will end.
In this context of limited judicial resources along with the recognition of the burden jury trials place upon members of the community, courts may be tempted to gloss over statements by potential jurors that hint at bias. It's tempting to think that fewer strikes today means courts need to call fewer potential jurors tomorrow. Interviewing five more potential jurors comes with high upfront costs. That's five more fives interrupted, five more questionnaires to review, and five more potential jurors to argue over. Tins is a real cost, but it pales in comparison with the cost of a new trial.
A trial court's desire to take all juror statements at face value is understandable, but contrary to Utah law. In the case of Taylor, the district court left the first juror in because it wanted to trust the juror's "assessment of Ills abilities to be impartial." State v. Taylor, 2025 UT App 14, ¶ 8, 564 P.3d. The court left the second juror in the pool because it felt the juror "was the type of person that would follow the court's direction exactly." Id. ¶ 13 (quotation simplified). This reaction displays the district court's trust in the system; its decision seems to ask how we can trust anything the jury does if we cannot trust individual's statements that they will be fair and follow instructions.
HANNAH LEAVITT-HOWELL is an attorney' at The Appellate Group. She specializes in criminal and child welfare appeals.
But that is one...
