Court grapples with jury issues as key jurors face challenges in trial

The Utah Court of Appeals convened on March 18, 2025, to address significant procedural issues in the case of State v. Millett. The meeting focused on the challenges faced during jury selection, particularly the insufficient number of jurors present for the trial.

The session began with a discussion about the implications of juror absenteeism. The presiding judge expressed concern over the low turnout, emphasizing the necessity of having every juror present for the trial to proceed effectively. This situation posed a considerable challenge for the court, as several jurors were excused, leading to a potential impact on the trial's integrity.

Three specific jurors were identified for removal at the defense's request due to potential biases. Juror 1, known to be friends with a police officer involved in the case, raised particular concern. The defense argued for their removal, citing conflicts of interest that could affect the jurors' impartiality.

As the discussions progressed, the court examined whether a formal motion had been made to postpone the trial due to the lack of jurors. It was noted that while there were discussions in chambers regarding the juror situation, no formal motion to continue the trial was recorded. This lack of a documented motion raised questions about the procedural integrity of the trial process.

The attorneys involved reiterated their positions on the jurors' qualifications and the necessity of addressing the absenteeism issue. The judge confirmed the accuracy of the discussions held in chambers but acknowledged the limitations of relying on unrecorded conversations for decision-making.

The meeting concluded with a focus on the need for clarity in the record-keeping of motions and discussions, particularly those that could influence the trial's outcome. The court's deliberations underscored the importance of maintaining procedural standards to ensure fair trial rights are upheld. Further actions and decisions regarding the case will be determined in subsequent sessions.