Florida Supreme Court Discusses When Biased Jury Is Grounds for Reversing Conviction

November 11, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In a major case, the Florida Supreme Court addressed when a potentially biased jury is grounds for overturning a criminal conviction. This is a key issue in Florida law.

In Florida, jury selection (also known as voir dire) is an essential part of any criminal trial. As part of this process, attorneys from both sides (State and defense) question prospective jurors regarding their potential biases – which may impact their ability to be fair and impartial when rendering their verdict.

If an attorney on either side is concerned about a potential juror, they may choose to “strike” them, resulting in that prospective juror being sent home (not chosen to sit on the jury). There are two kinds of strikes – peremptory strikes and for-cause strikes.

For-cause strikes occur when the State or defense tells the trial judge that they wish to send a potential juror home and explain why. This cannot be solely due to immutable characteristics, such as the potential juror’s race or gender. If the judge finds a legitimate basis for a for-cause strike, a request for one will be granted, and that prospective juror will not be seated.

Sometimes, a for-cause strike request will not be granted, forcing an attorney to use a peremptory strike if they still wish to ensure a prospective juror is not impaneled. Peremptory strikes do not require that an attorney voice a legal justification (e.g. concern about the fairness/impartiality of the potential juror) – the attorney may simply strike the potential juror without saying why.

Attorneys are given ten peremptory strikes in capital cases, six in felony cases, and three for misdemeanor cases in Florida. Though a reason does not have to be given for a peremptory strike (unlike a for-cause strike), it still must not occur on the basis of a potential juror’s race or gender. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)

Sometimes, a Florida defense attorney may wish to exercise a for-cause strike on a particular juror. Since each party receives an unlimited number of for-cause strikes (but a limited number of peremptories), it is strategically advisable to strike as many concerning prospective jurors “for cause” as possible (to preserve peremptory strikes).

But what happens when the trial judge denies a for-cause strike request, finding an insufficient legal basis for it? An attorney has two options – do not attempt to strike the potential juror at all (often a bad idea, especially if the potential juror is clearly biased), or use a peremptory strike on that potential juror.

However, as previously noted, there are a limited number of peremptory strikes. Given this, are there cases in which one or more for-cause strike requests are denied – and an attorney runs out of peremptories, resulting in a seemingly biased juror being seated? The answer is: yes.

Sometimes, an apparently biased jury (e.g. one or more objectionable jurors seated) may convict the defendant. The defendant may then appeal their conviction, arguing they did not receive a fair trial. But when is a potentially biased jury grounds for reversing a conviction? 

The Florida Supreme Court addressed this key issue in Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990). Let’s discuss it.

KEY CASE: Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)

In Trotter, the defendant (Trotter) was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery. He appealed on various grounds, and his case eventually made it to the Florida Supreme Court. Trotter argued to the Court that during jury selection, his attorney made four “for-cause” challenges of potential jurors that were erroneously denied by the trial judge.

Because of these denials, Trotter’s trial attorney was forced to exhaust all four of his remaining peremptory strikes against those potential jurors. Trotter’s attorney requested the judge to award an additional peremptory strike after running out, but this was denied. The jury was sworn in and Trotter was found guilty on all charges. 

The Florida Supreme Court held that even if Trotter was correct that the for-cause challenges were wrongly denied, he was not entitled to a new trial. The Court wrote:

“[Trotter] argues that because he eventually exhausted his peremptory challenges and was denied an additional one, reversal is required under state and federal law. We disagree. Under federal law, the defendant must show that a biased juror was seated. … Trotter has made no such claim.”

In essence, the Court noted that the denial of Trotter’s request for another peremptory strike was not reversible error (requiring his conviction to be thrown out) because he did not allege that the jury ultimately seated was actually biased. All four of the objectionable jurors were struck using peremptories. The Court elaborated on this point, observing;

“Under Florida law, ‘[t]o show reversible error, a defendant must show that all peremptories had been exhausted and that an objectionable juror had to be accepted.’ … By this we mean the following. Where a defendant seeks reversal based on a claim that he was wrongfully forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges, he initially must identify a specific juror whom he otherwise would have struck peremptorily.”

“This juror must be an individual who actually sat on the jury and whom the defendant either challenged for cause or attempted to challenge peremptorily or otherwise objected to after his peremptory challenges had been exhausted. The defendant cannot stand by silently while an objectionable juror is seated and then, if the verdict is adverse, obtain a new trial. In the present case, after exhausting his peremptory challenges, Trotter failed to object to any venireperson who ultimately was seated. He thus has failed to establish this claim.”

Put simply, a judge denying a for-cause strike (or a series of for-cause strikes) by the defense does not require reversal of a guilty verdict, even if the judge should have granted the request for the strike(s). If the potential jurors are removed (not seated) through use of peremptory strikes, the jury is not “biased” simply because the for-cause strikes were denied.

Since it was decided in 1990, Trotter has received both praise and criticism. Supporters of the ruling note that if the eventual jury does not consist of any objectionable jurors, reversing a verdict on the basis that a juror had to be struck peremptorily (rather than “for-cause”) would be far too drastic a remedy.

However, critics of Trotter argue that the erroneous challenge of a “for-cause” challenge and a subsequent denial of a request for an additional peremptory strike should be reversible error. As Trotter was wrongfully forced to strike jurors peremptorily rather than “for-cause,” jurors that would have been struck peremptorily were seated on his jury.

Even if those jurors would not have necessarily been struck “for-cause,” critics of Trotter assert that his due process rights were violated by the judge’s decision. But this school of thought did not win the day, and Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990) remains a staple of Florida jury law.

In sum, Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990) is a key decision in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding jury selection. Trotter ruled that even if a judge’s denial of a “for-cause” strike request during jury selection was erroneous, this is not automatically grounds for reversing a verdict against a defendant.

On appeal, a defendant must show that:

• A for-cause strike request was wrongfully denied by the judge (e.g. there was adequate legal basis for the for-cause strike)
• The defense was either forced to use a peremptory strike to send the prospective juror home, or the prospective juror was seated on the jury due to the defense running out of peremptory strikes
• If the defense stuck the objectionable juror using a peremptory strike and a request for an additional peremptory strike was denied, one or more objectionable potential jurors were actually seated on the jury

Essentially, Trotter’s ruling is “no harm, no foul.” If no objectionable jurors were impaneled, the erroneous denial of a for-cause strike (or series of them) does not require reversal on a guilty verdict due to jury bias. 

Important: If a Florida defense attorney objects to the composition of a jury (due to bias concerns), they must renew that objection immediately before the jury is sworn in and the trial begins. Otherwise, the issue is waived on appeal. Greathouse v. State, 371 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023)

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida and concerned about jury selection, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share