Utah Court of Appeals hears arguments in State v. Millett on juror bias and vehicle search

PRICE, Utah — The Utah Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments in State v. Millett, No. 20230449, where the defendant challenges the trial court's handling of jury selection in a small-town venire and a motion to suppress evidence recovered from a vehicle.

At issue before the three-judge panel were two discrete claims: that the trial judge abused discretion by refusing to strike three prospective jurors for cause in a reduced jury pool, and that the court erred in admitting evidence from the defendant's vehicle after officers questioned him and then retrieved items from the car.

The question matters because, if the appeals court finds the trial court erred on either ground, the convictions could be reversed or remanded for a new trial. Defense counsel argued the combination of a thin jury pool and close social ties between jurors and investigating officers denied the defendant a fair jury. The state responded that the record does not support those claims and that procedural safeguards and established case law support the trial court's rulings.

Andrew Fitzgerald, attorney for the defendant, told the panel that the jury selection process in the underlying trial was compromised when multiple prospective jurors knew or socialized with investigating officers and the venire was already small because of no-shows. "The relationship was too close," Fitzgerald said,…