self-serving claim in Tennessee

2025“While that presumption may be rebutted by an absence of actual prejudice, the court must view the totality of the circumstances, and not merely the juror’s self-serving claim of lack of partiality, to determine whether the presumption is overcome.” Akins, 867 S.W.2d at 357 .

2022See Atkins, 867 S.W.2d at 354 (To determine whether the presumption of prejudice is overcome, the trial court “must view the totality of the circumstances, not merely the juror’s self-serving claim of lack of partiality[.]”) In Hyatt v. State, 430 S.W.2d 129, 130 (1967), this court noted that where “‘the jury or juror has prejuded the case, and the knowledge of bias or prejudice is unknown until after the verdict, the courts say it must be presumed that [the juror’s] prejudices enter into and become a part of the result[.]’” Id. (quoting McGoldrick v. State, 21 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Tenn. 1929)).

2022See Atkins, 867 S.W.2d at 354 (To determine whether the presumption of prejudice is overcome, the trial court “must view the totality of the circumstances, not merely the juror’s self-serving claim of lack of partiality[.]”) In Hyatt v. State, 430 S.W.2d 129, 130 (1967), this court noted that where “‘the jury or juror has prejuded the case, and the knowledge of bias or prejudice is unknown until after the verdict, the courts say it must be presumed that [the juror’s] prejudices enter into and become a part of the result[.]’” Id. (quoting McGoldrick v. State, 21 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Tenn. 1929)).

2022See Atkins, 867 S.W.2d at 354 (To determine whether the presumption of prejudice is overcome, the trial court “must view the totality of the circumstances, not merely the juror’s self-serving claim of lack of partiality[.]”) In Hyatt v. State, 430 S.W.2d 129, 130 (1967), this court noted that where “‘the jury or juror has prejuded the case, and the knowledge of bias or prejudice is unknown until after the verdict, the courts say it must be presumed that [the juror’s] prejudices enter into and become a part of the result[.]’” Id. (quoting McGoldrick v. State, 21 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Tenn. 1929)).

2022See Atkins, 867 S.W.2d at 354 (To determine whether the presumption of prejudice is overcome, the trial court “must view the totality of the circumstances, not merely the juror’s self-serving claim of lack of partiality[.]”) In Hyatt v. State, 430 S.W.2d 129, 130 (1967), this court noted that where “‘the jury or juror has prejuded the case, and the knowledge of bias or prejudice is unknown until after the verdict, the courts say it must be presumed that [the juror’s] prejudices enter into and become a part of the result[.]’” Id. (quoting McGoldrick v. State, 21 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Tenn. 1929)).

2019With regard to the Defendant’s claims of improper extra-judicial communications, our supreme court has recognized that a jury’s exposure to extraneous prejudicial information or improper outside influence during trial renders the validity of the verdict “questionable.” Adams, 406 S.W.3d at 650 (citing State v. Blackwell, 664 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tenn. 1984)). “[E]xtraneous prejudicial information is information in the form of either fact or opinion that was not admitted into evidence but nevertheless bears on a fact at issue in the case.” Id. (citations omitted).

2019With regard to the Defendant’s claims of improper extra-judicial communications, our supreme court has recognized that a jury’s exposure to extraneous prejudicial information or improper outside influence during trial renders the validity of the verdict “questionable.” Adams, 406 S.W.3d at 650 (citing State v. Blackwell, 664 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tenn. 1984)). “[E]xtraneous prejudicial information is information in the form of either fact or opinion that was not admitted into evidence but nevertheless bears on a fact at issue in the case.” Id. (citations omitted).

2015Id. -9- Our supreme court has recognized that “proper fields of inquiry [into a juror’s bias or partiality] include the juror’s occupation, habits, acquaintanceships, associations and other facts, including his [or her] experiences, which will indicate his [or her] freedom from bias.” Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322, 347 (Tenn. 2011) (first brackets added; internal quotations omitted; citations omitted). “[F]ailure to disclose information in the face of a material question reasonably calculated to produce the answer or false disclosures give rise to a presumption of bias and partiality,” and “[

2012Id. at 650-51. -28- These cases illustrate what Akins demands of prospective jurors as well as the courts reviewing claims of juror bias and impartiality: “[F]ailure to disclose information in the face of a material question reasonably calculated to produce the answer or false disclosures give rise to a presumption of bias and partiality,” and “[w]hile that presumption may be rebutted by an absence of actual prejudice, the court must view the totality of the circumstances, and not merely the juror’s self-serving claim of lack of partiality, to determine whether the presumption is overcome.” 86