Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

Jury Selection: Grounds for Strike for Cause

Posted by Ted A. Schmidt | Jul 21, 2023 | 0 Comments

State v. Jimenez, No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0062 (App. Div. II, July 13, 2023) (J. Eckerstrom)


Defendant was convicted and sentenced of sexual abuse of his nine year old niece over an eighteen month period.  He appeals arguing his motion to strike a particular juror for cause was improperly denied and that the court erred in conditioning his putting on expert testimony of his “sexual normalcy” on the State being permitted to put on expert rebuttal testimony.  The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.

Juror 8 was a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] agent who for the final third of his career worked on a team that did surveillance on suspected pedophiles as they interacted with children. A substantial portion of his career involved investigating cases just like this one.

In voir dire Juror 8 said although he had special training in interrogating suspects and evaluating credibility and particularly  lying, he could evaluate witnesses at trial without employing those techniques. “I won't be saying anything, so yes.” When asked if he thought the defendant was a pedophile he responded, “I have no idea” and repeatedly stated he could be fair and impartial. He further stated he would not give special “deference or skepticism to law enforcement witnesses” and he understood the burden of proof.  He stated he had worked on a number of cases where he concluded the suspect “was not guilty” and that he could find defendant not guilty even though he had never arrested a suspect who was later acquitted.  Defendant's motion to strike this prospective juror was denied.

The trial court having the unique ability to observe and question prospective jurors has very broad discretion in exercising strikes for cause and on close questions like this, the appellate court should defer to the trial judge. The elimination of peremptory challenges does not change this rule.

Finally, there was no error in the trial court's ruling that should the defendant put on expert testimony regarding his “sexual normalcy” the State would be permitted to put on rebuttal testimony from its own expert who had interviewed the defendant as a basis for his opinions.

About the Author

Ted A. Schmidt

Ted's early career as a trial attorney began on the other side of the fence, in the offices of a major insurance defense firm. It was there that Ted acquired the experience, the skills and the special insight into defense strategy that have served him so well in the field of personal injury law. Notable among his successful verdicts was the landmark Sparks vs. Republic National Life Insurance Company case, a $4.5 million award to Ted's client. To this day, it is the defining case for insurance bad faith, and yet it is only one of several other multi-million dollar jury judgments won by Ted during his career. He is certified by the State Bar of Arizona as a specialist in "wrongful death and bodily injury litigation".


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Our team works together - for you!

Our award-winning lawyers are backed by a talented, caring team of legal professionals, paralegals, bilingual assistants, notaries, and others - all dedicated to you, your case, and the compensation you deserve.

No fees and no costs until we win.

As such we always have your case and your best interest in mind. When you win, we win too by providing the best legal care possible.

Thorough investigation and preparation.

We tirelessly and thoughtfully prepare every case we represent as though it was going to trial. This lets insurance companies know that we are a force to be reckoned with. As such, we settle successfully 98% of the time.