In State v. Hauptman the defendant appealed his conviction on grounds that a juror had lied during voir dire and if she had told the truth would have been excluded for cause. Here is what the juror told the court after conviction:
My guilty vote was not based on the fact that I thought Mr. Hauptman was guilty of spanking for the intent of sexual gratification. It was based on the idea that if it happened once, then he should have avoided that situation all together and not spanked again. Also I leaned toward guilty, at the time, because of other immoral forms of sexual gratification that he participated in, like . . . the pornography. As much as I believed during jury selection that pornography would not play a part in my vote, I regret to say that it did to some extent. I voted guilty for the wrong reasons and my conscience will not let me get away with it.
The question on voir dire was:
[I]f the evidence comes out in this case that the defendant
has in the past viewed pornography, would that fact affect
your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? If those
were the facts, if that came out in this case from the
evidence, would that affect your ability to be fair and
impartial and base your decision solely on the evidence in
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Why? Because she did not lie, at least the letter to the trial court is not enough to show that she lied during voir dire. She answered then that she would follow the law, etc. She intended to, so no lie. And that seems right, as far as it goes.
But, little minds like mine want to know, isn't this reversable on a different ground -- that she voted to convict based on something other than the evidence and law? Is it that the appeal was on the wrong theory or that what she did was okay? In any event, it looks off to me. But then, I do not practice criminal law (though what I practice may be criminal in a metaphorical way).