That's true, hence the alternate jurors. If a juror proves to be unreasonable or is accused of bad faith or misconduct then they are excused and replaced by one of the alternate jurors.If there's a limit on the number of potential jury members you can exclude then the possibility of a bad juror is always there.
It's not an everyday occurrence, but it does happen.
That's going to be a prosecution argument, I'm sure: when did you get this picture?
Because if it was at any time during the trial, they should have moved to exclude that particular juror in favor of one of the alternates. If it was after the trial, then one would wonder why it wasn't discovered until then?
There's a lot of arguments to be made, but bottom line that fellow should have been more forthcoming about his attitude with BLM. The question was simple: would you or anybody you know ever take part in a BLM protest?
Clearly, the answer should have been yes. He was donning the gear, hanging out with like minded people. For all we know they left that bar and went straight to a BLM protest. The fact that he clearly supports the movement is enough that he should have answered yes.
No judge is going to look favorably on a juror that lies no matter what the excuse.
We'll see. I hope that lone idiot doesn't blow a wonderful case put on by the prosecution and a just judgement.