Shahriyar Bolandian was convicted of six counts of insider trading for allegedly trading on non-public information provided by his friend, Ashish Aggarwal, a J.P. Morgan analyst. During Bolandian's trial, Juror No. 6 sent a note to the judge stating that his uncle, who owned a private investment firm, had conducted business with J.P. Morgan and might have a relationship to a witness. When the judge questioned the juror, the juror admitted, 'Honestly, I am not sure' if he could be fair to both sides. The judge instructed the juror to monitor his own feelings and report back if he felt biased, rather than conducting a further investigation. Defense counsel agreed to let the juror continue serving, and the juror eventually became the jury foreman. Bolandian was convicted and sentenced to 24 months in prison, but he appealed arguing that the failure to dismiss the biased juror denied him a fair trial.
The Ninth Circuit focused on the district court's constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment to ensure an impartial jury. The court explained that when a colorable claim of juror bias emerges, the trial judge has an 'independent responsibility to satisfy himself that the allegation of bias is unfounded.' This duty cannot be delegated to the juror or waived by defense counsel. The court distinguished between 'forfeiture' and 'waiver,' noting that while defense counsel can often waive procedural rights, they cannot waive the judge's duty to investigate bias. Because the judge failed to 'erect and employ a suitable framework for investigating the allegation' and instead placed the onus on the juror to self-monitor, the court found plain error. The judge's inquiry was insufficient because the juror explicitly stated he was 'not sure' he could be fair, and the court took no steps to rehabilitate the juror or strike him. The court held that the presence of a biased juror is a structural error that affects substantial rights and seriously impacts the fairness of judicial proceedings, necessitating a new trial.
The conviction is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial. The decision clarifies that trial judges must actively investigate juror bias when it is raised, regardless of whether defense counsel agrees to proceed. It establishes that a judge cannot simply ask a biased juror to self-monitor and expect them to report back; the court must take affirmative steps to ensure impartiality. This ruling reinforces that the right to an impartial jury is fundamental and that the district court's duty to protect it is non-delegable.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download