Major FL Court Reverses Murder Conviction Over Juror’s Failure to Disclose Forensic Training

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Violent Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed a defendant’s murder conviction after the trial judge failed to excuse a juror who took a multi-week forensic science course taught by the lead detective in the case.

In Florida, jury selection (also known as voir dire) is a significant part of any criminal trial. The importance of jury selection is hard to overstate, as it allows the respective parties (the State and the defense) to evaluate which potential jurors will be “right” for the case (e.g. will be truly fair and impartial).

During jury selection, the State and defense receive an unlimited number of cause challenges. A cause challenge occurs when one of the parties believes that a potential juror has experiences or has made one or more comments that will preclude them from being a truly fair and impartial juror in a case. Examples include:

• A potential juror says during questioning that they will always trust a police officer’s testimony over other witnesses
• A potential juror reveals that they have a personal connection to the alleged victim in the case, and thus cannot fairly evaluate the defendant’s guilt (or lack thereof)
• A potential juror says that if someone is “sitting at the defendant’s table,” they are likely guilty of the crime they have been accused of

All of the above would be a strong basis for a cause challenge. This is because the potential juror is telegraphing that they will not be able to objectively evaluate the evidence and the testimony in the case – their verdict will be informed partially or entirely by their personal biases.

If the State or defense moves for a cause challenge on the basis that they do not think a potential juror will be fair or impartial once seated, the trial judge has one of two choices:

• Grant the cause challenge, excusing the potential juror from service (e.g. sending them home)
• Deny the cause challenge, allowing the potential juror to remain seated (e.g. eligible to sit on the jury)

In the event that a cause challenge of a potential juror is denied, the challenging party is likely to exercise a peremptory strike on that potential juror (if one is available). A peremptory strike (or peremptory challenge) occurs when one party to the case unilaterally “strikes” a potential juror (e.g. sends them home), without having to explain why to the trial judge or opposing party.

A peremptory strike can occur on any basis, except for someone’s race, ethnicity, or sex. If the opposing party believes a peremptory strike is impermissibly being used upon someone due to their minority status, there is likely to be a Neil challenge – requiring the striking party to provide a race-, sex-, or ethnicity-neutral explanation for the peremptory strike.

Note: Peremptory strikes, unlike cause challenges, are limited in number. Each party receives 3 strikes in misdemeanor cases, 6 strikes in non-capital/life felony cases, and 10 strikes in capital and life felony cases. For more, click here.

Sometimes, a potential juror will not reveal something that may impact their ability to be fair and impartial until after trial has begun (or the defense may find out a detail about a juror that calls into question their impartiality only after the trial is over). To learn more about what occurs when such a situation arises, click here.

In certain cases, a seated juror may not even realize that they have a “connection” to someone involved in the trial (e.g. a witness) until it is underway. At that point, the juror may divulge to the judge and attorneys in the case that their verdict may be biased as a result.

Most of the time, this will result in that juror being replaced by an alternate. An alternate juror is one of usually two to three jurors (in addition to the six that are part of the actual jury) that also sit through the trial – and replace one of the actual jurors if necessary when deliberations begin. Alternates do not know they are alternates until the end of the trial.

However, a trial judge may occasionally deny the defense’s request that the juror be removed, even if the juror has revealed something during trial that may impact their ability to be fair and impartial. In many cases, this is reversible error if the defendant is convicted – as the risk that the jury would be biased as a result was ignored by the trial judge.

One such case in which this occurred is Dery v. State, 68 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010). Let’s take a look at Dery and what it means for defendants concerned about jury selection (and those concerned about fair and impartial juries generally) in Florida.

KEY CASE: Dery v. State, 68 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010)

In Dery, the defendant (Dery) was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder. The case against him was largely based on circumstantial evidence, including DNA.

A key aspect of the State’s case against Dery was the presentation of forensic evidence. The three primary witnesses that the State relied upon to introduce this were the medical examiner, the lead detective on the case, and a DNA expert.

On the second day of Dery’s trial, one of the jurors asked to speak with the judge. The juror, a bus driver in her mid-fifties, disclosed that she had prior forensics training in the form of an online course that lasted approximately seventeen weeks. Not only that, but her instruction was the lead detective in Dery’s case.

Upon hearing this, Dery moved to excuse the juror and replace her with an alternate juror. Dery argued that not only would the juror likely be primarily influenced by forensic evidence due to her training – but she had a personal connection to one of the witnesses in the case. As a result, Dery believed the juror could not be fair and impartial when deliberations began.

Despite Dery’s concerns, the trial judge overruled his request to excuse the juror. The trial judge found that Dery had not made a clear enough showing of potential bias – and the case proceeded with the objectionable juror. Dery was found guilty, and appealed to the 2nd DCA.

Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa area) reversed Dery’s murder conviction, finding the judge abused his discretion by failing to excuse the juror at Dery’s request. The 2nd DCA wrote:

“Mr. Dery did not move for a mistrial. He merely moved to have juror # 8 removed from the jury with either of the two available alternate jurors substituted in her place. The trial court denied this motion, focusing primarily on the limited personal contact between the juror and the detective. For purposes of this opinion, we assume that the juror had no reason to disclose that she knew the detective during voir dire and that her limited connection to this witness would not be a basis that required the trial court to remove her from the panel prior to deliberations.”

“The primary concern in this case is that juror # 8 did not disclose that she had taken a course in forensic science, including the subject of DNA, when the State’s questions during voir dire clearly required her to disclose this training. A juror, who appeared from voir dire to have no training or interests that would affect her service, suddenly revealed mid-trial that she had a sufficiently serious interest in forensic science to take a course on the subject when she was approximately fifty years old. Given that most of the State’s evidence was based on forensic sciences, Mr. Dery’s attorney was entirely credible when he represented that he would, if necessary, have used a peremptory challenge to remove this juror if she had properly revealed this training during voir dire.”

In essence, the 2nd DCA found that Dery would have likely exercised a peremptory strike on the juror if her forensic training and connection to the detective were disclosed during jury selection. Because the failure to learn this was not attributable to Dery’s “lack of due diligence” during voir dire, the 2nd DCA found that the trial judge erred by not immediately excusing the juror:

“Here, juror # 8 had specialized knowledge about DNA stemming from the course she took in forensic science. Instead of admitting that she had taken a course on the subject, the juror concealed her knowledge. Her failure to disclose this knowledge cannot be attributed to a lack of diligence on Mr. Dery’s part because the State expressly asked the jury panel whether any of them had any specific knowledge about DNA and Mr. Dery had no reason to inquire further after the juror failed to indicate her training in the subject. As a result, Mr. Dery was prevented from exercising a peremptory or for-cause challenge to strike her from the jury during voir dire and, thus, was prejudiced by her nondisclosure.”

“When Mr. Dery did discover the juror’s specialized knowledge about DNA, he promptly sought to replace her with an alternate juror. There were two alternate jurors on the panel. These alternate jurors were still available when the jury was sent to deliberate. The trial court released these alternate jurors when there was little or no reason why either one of them could not have deliberated in the place of juror # 8. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to replace the juror with an alternate. As such, we reverse Mr. Dery’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.”

In essence, the 2nd DCA concluded the juror should have disclosed her forensic training earlier – and that once she did (plus the fact that she was trained by the lead detective), the trial judge was required to excuse the juror and replace her with an alternate. 

In sum, Dery v. State, 68 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010) is a significant development in Florida case law on the issue of jury selection and when jurors must be excused from service when they reveal information about their potential bias during trial (e.g. after they’ve already been seated). The 2nd DCA held:

• The juror in Dery’s case was asked during jury selection about “special knowledge” of DNA, but did not say anything
• If the juror disclosed her 17-week forensic training with the lead detective at that point, Dery would likely have exercised a peremptory strike on that juror
• Because of the failure to disclose that information, the juror was seated
• Dery’s failure to discover the juror’s forensic training was not due to his “lack of due diligence” during jury selection
• As a result of the fact that the juror was likely to be biased by her training/connection with the detective, the trial judge was required to excuse the juror and replace her with an alternate
• The trial judge’s failure to do so required the reversal of Dery’s murder conviction (and for the matter to be remanded for a new trial)

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Dery v. State, 68 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2010), as it provides a thorough analysis of when a trial judge must excuse a potential juror for cause – and when a juror must be excused once trial has actually begun. 

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 criminal 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