Background
Attila Colar, a Black Muslim man, was tried for forty-four federal counts including bank fraud and obstruction related to the Paycheck Protection Program. During voir dire, Colar raised a defense theory that law enforcement targeted him based on race and religion. An alternate juror, Juror Forty-Eight, expressed strong negative reactions to this defense, stating that the claims of discrimination and police corruption were festering in his mind and lacked substance. The district court allowed the juror to remain on the alternate panel without immediate investigation. When a regular juror was excused due to a car accident, the court conducted a belated inquiry, and the juror claimed he had overcome his bias. The juror then participated in the verdict.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury, and the participation of even a single biased juror is structural error. Once a colorable issue of juror bias arises, the court must investigate before the juror continues to serve. The district court abused its discretion by deferring the inquiry until the alternate juror was needed and by conducting an inadequate colloquy that failed to confirm the juror could set aside his expressed bias. The record was unclear as to whether the juror could remain impartial, and this doubt should have been resolved against him.
The participation of even a single biased juror in rendering a guilty verdict is structural error requiring reversal.
United States v. Colar, 23-2939 (9th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
Defendants must ensure that any expressed juror bias is investigated immediately, and courts cannot delay inquiry for alternate jurors. Failure to do so will result in reversal of convictions as structural error.