Major Florida Court Upholds Sexual Battery Conviction Despite Biased Juror… Here’s Why

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

A top Florida court recently affirmed a conviction for sexual battery despite the fact that the jury appeared biased against him from the start. Here’s why.

In Florida, jury selection is a key part of a criminal trial. Though this process (called voir dire) is often overlooked or poorly understood by those who are not acquainted with the justice system, ensuring that jurors who cannot be fair and impartial do not serve on a jury is an essential part of this process.

During voir dire, potential jurors are questioned by both the prosecutor and the defense attorney in the case. The State and defense each receive an unlimited number of “for-cause” strikes. They also receive a predetermined number of “peremptory” strikes (10 in capital felony cases, 6 in non-capital felony cases, 3 in misdemeanor cases). 

There is a key difference between these. A “for-cause” strike occurs when either the State or the defense believes that a juror will be unable to impartially view the evidence and will potentially base their preferred verdict at least partially on their personal bias. 

As a result, an attorney may make a motion to strike a prospective juror for cause, which may be granted or denied by the trial judge. If a motion for a for-cause strike is granted, that person is immediately excused from jury selection (sent home).

But what happens when a for-cause strike request is denied by the judge? The answer is that the attorney must use a peremptory strike (which does not require justification to the court) on that juror – or else that objectionable juror may end up being seated on the jury. But this is easier said than done.

In some cases, an attorney may move to strike a potential juror for cause and have that motion denied – then realize they are all out of peremptory strikes. When this occurs, the objectionable potential juror may end up seated on the jury, which has the potential to change the outcome of the case.

Now, imagine a scenario in which a Florida defense attorney intends to strike two potential jurors for cause, only to have both of these motions denied. They only have one peremptory strike left, and choose to use it on one of the two seemingly biased jurors. However, the other is seated on the jury – and the defendant is found guilty.

For many, this seems to be a case that would require a reversal of the guilty verdict. The attorney expressed concern about the bias of the seated juror (through the attempted use of a “for-cause” strike), and this was denied. Now, for the sake of argument, also imagine that the appellate court agreed that the judge should have granted at least one of the strikes (not denied them).

Though this exact hypothetical played out in a Tampa court in 2023, Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa area) affirmed the guilty verdict against the defendant. But why? 

Let’s discuss the 2nd DCA’s Greathouse v. State, 371 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023) decision and what it means for jury selection in Florida.

KEY CASE: Greathouse v. State, 371 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023)

In Greathouse, the defendant (Greathouse) was charged with sexual battery and elected to have a jury trial. During jury selection (voir dire), a potential juror said that she got the “heebie jeebies” hearing the charges against Greenhouse. The potential juror was questioned by Greathouse’s attorney and conceded that she “had concerns” about her ability to be fair and impartial.

Shortly thereafter, another potential juror was questioned by Greathouse’s attorney and indicated that her background as a teacher may make her more sympathetic to victims of abuse. Before the conclusion of voir dire, Greathouse’s attorney moved to strike both jurors for cause, arguing that they would not be fair and impartial.

The trial judge denied both of the motions to strike the potential jurors for cause. Following this decision, the defense attorney chose to use his final peremptory strike on the first potential juror (who got the “heebie jeebies”) – leaving him no way to strike the second potential juror (since his for-cause strike request was denied, and he was out of peremptory strikes).

The second potential juror was seated on the jury – without Greathouse’s attorney making any further objection immediately before the trial began. Greathouse was convicted. On appeal to the 2nd DCA, Greathouse argued that the judge erred by denying the strike requests and seating a biased juror, requiring reversal of the guilty verdict at trial.

The 2nd DCA agreed with Greathouse that the trial court improperly denied the for-cause strike request as to the first potential juror. If this was granted (as it should have been), the 2nd DCA conceded that Greathouse’s attorney would’ve used the final peremptory strike on the other biased potential juror. This would’ve led to neither being seated on the jury:

“Considering this authority, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to excuse Mehr (the first potential juror) for cause. Her response during voir dire created uncertainty regarding her ability to be fair and impartial… and neither the State nor the court asked any follow-up questions that might have rehabilitated her.”

But despite the fact that the wrongful denial of a for-cause challenge that led to the seating of an objectionable juror would ordinarily be grounds to reverse the verdict and require a new trial, the 2nd DCA affirmed the guilty verdict against Greathouse. This is because Greathouse failed to object again to the composition of the jury immediately before trial. The court wrote:

“Because Greathouse was forced to use his final peremptory challenge to strike Mehr and identified King-Florio (the second potential juror) as an additional objectionable juror whom he would have struck, he ‘satisfied the Trotter standard for prejudice.’”

“But that still leaves the issue of preservation… Although there is considerable overlap between the requirements for establishing prejudice from the error under Trotter and preserving the error for appellate review, they are not identical.” 

“To preserve a challenge for cause to a prospective juror, a defendant must “object to the juror[ ], show that he or she has exhausted all peremptory challenges and requested more that were denied, and identify a specific juror that he or she would have excused if possible.’ … As stated above, Greathouse did all of that. Preservation, however, also requires something more: a renewed objection before the jury is sworn.”

The 2nd DCA held that because Greathouse (through his attorney) failed to make a final pretrial objection to the seating of the objectionable juror immediately before the jury was sworn, this waived the issue on appeal – requiring the guilty verdict to be affirmed. The court concluded:

“Here, after the trial court confirmed the final panel with the parties, it was incumbent upon Greathouse to speak up once again, to give the court ‘one last chance to correct a potential error.’ Instead, Greathouse affirmatively accepted Moore as an alternate and did not raise any objection after the final composition of the jury was confirmed and before it was sworn, thereby suggesting that he was satisfied with the jury as it was and depriving the court of the ‘one last chance’ that Joiner requires. We thus conclude that Greathouse abandoned his objections to the jury.” 

Supporters of Greathouse v. State, 371 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023) are likely to argue that the decision faithfully applied current Florida law – requiring defense attorneys to object to the seating of a jury immediately before this occurs to preserve an appeal. Critics are likely to lament that a technicality was the difference between the verdict being affirmed and reversed.

Regardless of one’s position, it is critical for Florida defense attorneys and defendants to read and understand the logic behind Greathouse v. State, 371 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2023). 

If a judge denies a for-cause challenge in Florida and an objectionable juror is seated as a result, a final objection must occur right before the jury is sworn to give the judge “one last chance” to strike the objectionable juror(s).

If such an objection is not made, the issue is waived on appeal. Even if the appellate court agrees (like the 2nd DCA did) that the objectionable juror should never have been seated, reversal of the verdict will no longer occur – as the issue is considered waived.

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