Major FL Court Reverses Sexual Battery Conviction Over Judge’s Failure to Excuse Biased Jurors

January 14, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a judge’s failure to excuse “for cause” two jurors who indicated they were biased against the defendant – resulting in the seating of an “undesirable” juror – required reversal of the defendant’s convictions.

In Florida, jury selection (also known as voir dire) is a critical part of any criminal trial. Jury selection allows both the State and defense to evaluate how potential jurors feel about various issues that are relevant to the trial. This is essential to determine who will (or will not) be likely to be fair and impartial when rendering a verdict.

During jury selection (which occurs immediately before trial), the State and defense are awarded an unlimited number of “for-cause” strikes. A “for-cause” strike may occur when the State or defense raise a concern to the judge that based on something the potential juror said, that juror will not be able to be fair and impartial in the case.

If a “for-cause” strike is requested, the trial judge can either grant it or deny it. The judge will base this decision not solely on what the potential juror has said during jury selection – but also whether the potential juror can be rehabilitated (e.g. act fairly and impartially if instructed by the judge to do so).

When a trial judge denies a “for-cause” strike request, it is not a guarantee that the objectionable potential juror will be seated on the actual jury. This is because both parties (State and defense) are also awarded a set number of “peremptory” strikes – three in misdemeanor cases, six in non-capital felony cases, and ten in capital felony cases.

A peremptory strike occurs when the State or defense unilaterally excuses a potential juror. The rationale for this does not have to be announced or justified to the court. However, a peremptory strike may not be based on the race or sex of the potential juror. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)  

Occasionally, a potential juror may disclose information that indicates that they are potentially biased against a defendant at a Florida criminal trial from the start. They may say, for example, that they were the victim of a similar offense and are predisposed to find the defendant guilty. Another common expectation is for the defendant to testify if they are “truly” innocent.

When an experienced, aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney hears remarks such as these from potential jurors, they will likely move to exercise a “for-cause” strike. They will do so on the grounds that the potential juror has announced that they are biased, and this bias (especially if it stems from a traumatic personal experience) cannot realistically be set aside.

However, a trial judge may occasionally deny a request for a “for-cause” strike. The judge may conclude that the potential juror is not too biased to serve on the jury. Thus, if the potential juror is to be excused, this must be done via a peremptory strike.

In some cases, a defense attorney may develop a race and sex-neutral belief that a potential juror would be biased – but does not necessarily have a strong enough basis to argue that they should be excused “for cause.” 

As a result, they may reserve peremptory strikes for jurors who fall into this category – while attempting to use as many “for-cause” strikes as possible (since they are unlimited in number).

But what happens when a judge denies multiple “for-cause” strike requests from the defense, forcing them to use peremptory strikes to excuse the potential jurors? Often, this leads to the defense running out of peremptory strikes that they would have otherwise used on the other, not-quite-as-clearly-biased jurors.

In the event that there are no peremptories left, and one or more undesirable potential jurors who would have been excused via peremptory strike remain in the pool, the defense can (and should) request additional peremptory strikes to excuse these remaining jurors. The trial judge can either grant or deny this request.

In some cases, a trial judge may wrongly deny a for-cause strike request, requiring the defense to use a final peremptory strike on that potential juror. The judge may also deny a defense request for additional peremptory strikes to use on the remaining objectionable jurors.

In the event that this occurs and an “undesirable” potential juror is sworn, does this require a defendant’s conviction to be reversed in Florida? The answer is yes – as long as the issue is properly preserved for appeal. Greathouse v. State, 371 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023)

Let’s take a look at a case where this happened – Segura v. State, 921 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006) – and what it means for defendants who were (or are concerned about being) convicted by potentially biased juries in Florida.

KEY CASE: Segura v. State, 921 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006)

In Segura, the defendant (Segura) was charged with two counts of sexual battery on a minor and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation. He was convicted on all counts.

During jury selection, two potential jurors expressed the view that they would likely be biased against Segura from the jump. The first potential juror – Parker – stated that her niece had been sexually assaulted at 15. Parker said that she would try not to let this affect her judgment of the case, but made no guarantees of fairness and impartiality.

The second potential juror – Mihaiu – indicated that if Segura was innocent, he would want to hear him testify and “strenuously protest” his innocence. If this did not occur, Mihaiu indicated he would be likely to find Segura guilty (even though a key legal principle is that silence at trial is not to be held against the defendant).

Segura moved to strike both potential jurors “for-cause.” However, the trial judge denied both of these requests, finding that Parker and Mihaiu were not biased enough to warrant a “for-cause” strike. After hearing this, Segura (through his lawyer) used his final two peremptory strikes on the two potential jurors.

This was problematic because Segura had intentionally preserved those peremptory strikes for another two potential jurors that were “undesirable.” After striking Parker and Mihaiu, Segura asked the judge for an additional two peremptory strikes (for the two remaining objectionable potential jurors). 

The trial judge only awarded him one, resulting in one of the “undesirable” (potentially biased) jurors being seated. Just before the jury was sworn in, Segura objected to the jury’s composition, but this was denied and the trial proceeded with the objectionable juror. Segura was found guilty.

On appeal, Segura contended that both Parker and Mihaiu should have been stricken “for cause” due to serious bias concerns. If this had occurred, Segura would have stricken both remaining “undesirable” jurors from the pool using peremptories.

As his for-cause strike requests were denied and he was awarded only one additional peremptory strike, Segura asserted that the judge’s error resulted in a potentially biased jury. As a result of this, and because he properly preserved his objection to the jury immediately before trial began, Segura argued his convictions required reversal.

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal agreed, reversing Segura’s convictions and remanding to the lower court for a new trial. The 3rd DCA first began by discussing the law surrounding cause challenges (e.g. “for-cause” strikes):

“A cause challenge should be granted “if there is a basis for any reasonable doubt as to any juror’s possessing that state of mind which will enable him to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at trial[.]” Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 23-24 (Fla. 1959). … The impartiality of a juror is so essential to affording a defendant a fair trial that in a close case it “should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror rather than leaving a doubt as to his or her impartiality.””

Examining the facts, the 3rd DCA found that both Parker and Mihaiu should have been stricken “for-cause.” As the judge failed to strike them and gave Segura only one additional peremptory strike (not two), this resulted in a potentially biased jury – entitling Segura to a new trial:

“The defense moved to strike these two jurors for cause. The court denied the cause challenges. The defense used peremptories to strike these jurors. Upon exhausting its peremptories, the defense requested two additional peremptories; the court only granted one. The defense was forced to accept an undesirable juror. The defendant was convicted as charged. This error was properly preserved.”

“[W]e must conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the cause challenges to both jurors: Juror Parker clearly expressed doubts as to her ability to be fair based on her experience with a family member victim of a similar crime; this was sufficient to justify excusing her for cause. … Juror Mihaiu expressed his conviction that led the defense to logically conclude that “the accused must produce evidence of his innocence to avoid a conviction at the hands of that juror.” This juror should also have been excused for cause. … As the foregoing demonstrates, the court’s decision to deny these cause challenges, and its denial of two additional peremptory challenges to defendant, was manifest error. Defendant is entitled to a new trial.”

In sum, Segura v. State, 921 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding jury selection – and when potentially biased juries can lead to a defendant receiving a new trial. The 3rd DCA (Miami area) found:

• The trial judge should have granted Segura’s “for-cause” strike requests for two biased potential jurors 
• Because the judge “abused his discretion” by failing do so (in both cases), Segura was forced to use peremptory strikes on both
• To remedy this error, the judge was required to award Segura two additional peremptory strikes, not just one 
• Because the failure to award two peremptory strikes may have resulted in a biased jury, Segur’s convictions were reversed and he received a new trial

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Segura v. State, 921 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006). It emphasizes that for every wrongly-denied cause challenge, a trial judge must award the defense an additional peremptory strike. 

If the judge fails to do so, as was the case in Segura (two wrongly denied cause challenges but only one peremptory strike awarded), this is reversible error on appeal, so long as the defense objects before the jury is sworn.

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