## Facts

- Dechanta Knox was arrested on August 5, 2008 and indicted on September 2, 2008 for three counts of issuing a bad check greater than $1,000.
- During voir dire on March 17, 2009, the judge asked whether any prospective juror knew the attorneys or any attorney/employee in the Attorney General’s office or defense counsel; no one, including Juror No. 8, responded.
- Voir dire did not include questioning about whether any juror was a crime victim.
- Unknown to the parties and court, Juror No. 8 was the alleged victim in a then-pending robbery prosecution assigned to the same Deputy Attorney General (Kevin M. Carroll) who prosecuted Knox.
- The robbery case was scheduled for trial on March 31, 2009, about two weeks after jury selection in Knox’s case.
- Knox was convicted on all three counts on March 18, 2009.
- On March 23–25, 2009, Carroll met with Juror No. 8 regarding the pending robbery prosecution, discovered the juror’s service in Knox’s trial, notified the trial judge, and withdrew from the robbery case.
- Knox moved for a new trial based on juror bias and an inadequate voir dire record; the trial court ordered a deposition of Juror No. 8 and denied the motion without an in-court evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant was denied the right to an impartial jury when a seated juror was an alleged crime victim in a pending prosecution handled contemporaneously by the same prosecutor’s office and the same prosecutor who tried the defendant’s case.
2. Whether, under those circumstances, the trial court’s post-verdict deposition-only inquiry into juror impartiality was inadequate as a matter of law, requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that a deposition-only inquiry did not sufficiently probe Juror No. 8’s ability to render a fair and objective verdict given the juror’s contemporaneous relationship to the prosecuting office and prosecutor.
- The court concluded that the conflict and the limited inquiry deprived Knox of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the juror for cause or by peremptory strike and undermined the fairness of the trial.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant is entitled to an impartial jury; juror bias may be shown as actual bias or may be implied from circumstances that create an unacceptable risk of partiality.
- When a seated juror is an alleged crime victim in a pending criminal case and is contemporaneously represented by the Attorney General’s office in that prosecution, a deposition-based inquiry into whether the juror knew the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s office is legally insufficient to assess impartiality.
- In such circumstances, the trial court must conduct a more searching, live inquiry capable of meaningfully testing the juror’s ability to decide solely on the evidence, and the failure to do so can require reversal and a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because a juror’s undisclosed status as a victim in a pending prosecution handled by the same prosecutor created a serious risk of implied bias, and the trial court’s deposition-only investigation after the verdict was inadequate to protect the right to an impartial jury and the meaningful use of juror challenges.


Knox v. State, 29 A.3d 217 (Del. 2011)