When a criminal defendant claims the structural error of deprivation of the right to trial by an impartial jury, is that claim appropriately reviewed on appeal using an abuse of discretion standard?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The first time this case was before the First Circuit, it remanded for further proceedings on French’s motion for a new trial made after information surfaced suggesting that a juror lied during the selection process. United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 113-14, 125 (1st Cir. 2018) (“French I’). The second time this case was before the First Circuit, the court affirmed the denial of a new trial, reasoning that the district court “did not abuse [its] discretion” because French failed to carry his burden of showing that the juror had a biased motive for lying. United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 125-27 (1st Cir. 2020) (“French IT). The questions presented are: 1. When a criminal defendant claims the structural error of deprivation of the right to trial by an impartial jury, is that claim appropriately reviewed on appeal using an abuse of discretion standard? 2. To win a new trial based on a claim of juror mendacity in the selection process, must a defendant prove that the juror possessed a biased motive? 1