Summary
The Ninth Circuit vacated Shahriyar Bolandian’s insider-trading conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that defense counsel could not waive the district court’s independent duty to reasonably investigate a juror’s expressed potential bias, and that the failure to conduct such an investigation constituted plain error affecting Bolandian’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defense counsel's agreement that a juror could continue serving waived or forfeited a challenge based on the juror's expressed uncertainty about impartiality.
- Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the juror's actual bias and by allowing the juror to remain on the jury.
- Whether the juror-bias error required a new trial.
Holdings
- The district court's independent duty to investigate juror bias that emerges during trial is a prerequisite to any knowing waiver of a juror-bias claim. Defense counsel may not waive that investigative duty. Because no reasonable investigation occurred, Bolandian forfeited rather than waived his actual-bias challenge, making plain-error review available.
- The district court plainly erred by failing to conduct a suitable inquiry into Juror No. 6's possible actual bias and by placing the responsibility on the juror to monitor and report his own bias after trial had begun. The court should have investigated the reasons for the juror's uncertainty and considered whether to strike or rehabilitate him.
- The error affected Bolandian's substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the proceedings. The presence of a potentially biased juror required a new trial without a separate showing of actual prejudice.
Key quotations
“At minimum, defense counsel may not waive the district court’s duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into juror bias that emerges during trial.” (15)
“Absent a district court’s reasonable investigation of a juror bias claim, no subsequent waiver of a juror bias claim can be valid.” (17)
“In doing so, the district judge abdicated his “indispensable role in preserving for the accused an impartial jury.”” (19)
Factual background
Bolandian was convicted of insider trading based on trades in PLX Technologies and ExactTarget securities before public merger announcements. During the second day of trial, Juror No. 6 disclosed that his uncle owned a San Francisco investment firm that had conducted business with J.P. Morgan and might have a relationship to a witness. When asked whether he could still be fair, the juror repeatedly stated that he was not sure. The district court did not investigate further or attempt rehabilitation, instead instructing the juror to report later if he remained concerned; the juror served through the verdict and became foreperson.
Procedural history
Bolandian was tried in the Central District of California in April 2024 and convicted of six insider-trading counts. During trial, Juror No. 6 disclosed a possible relationship involving his uncle, J.P. Morgan, and a witness, and stated that he was not sure he could be fair. The district court allowed the juror to remain, instructing him to report later if he continued to feel biased; defense counsel subsequently agreed that the juror could continue serving. The jury convicted Bolandian, Juror No. 6 became foreperson, and the district court sentenced Bolandian to 24 months in prison. The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Vacate the judgment of conviction and conduct a new trial.