Whether the district court violated due process by appointing the Federal Defender to represent a juror and inform the juror of the legitimacy of the bias claim ex parte, and by failing to ask the juror questions during the evidentiary hearing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case came before the First Circuit Court of Appeals on two occasions. In the first proceeding, the First Circuit remanded for further proceedings on defendants’ motion for a new trial made after information became known that a juror had lied during the jury selection process. United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 113-114, 125 (1* Cir. 2018) (“French I”). The second time this case came before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court affirmed the denial of a new trial, reasoning that the district court “did not abuse [its] discretion” because defendants Russell and French had failed to carry their burden of showing that the juror in question possessed a biased motive for lying. United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 125-127 (1* Cir. 2020) (‘French II”). The questions presented are: I. Whether it violated due process for the district court to appoint the Federal Defender not only to represent a juror for whom a legitimate claim of bias had been assessed, but also to inform that juror of the legitimacy of that claim of bias ex parte, as well as for the district court, pre-hearing, to abnegate responsibility to ask that same juror questions during an evidentiary hearing when the district court during -i that hearing identified deficits in information from that juror. Il. | Whether a claim of structural error of the deprivation of the right to trial by an impartial jury is appropriately reviewed on appeal using an “abuse of discretion” standard. I. Whether a criminal defendant seeking to win a new trial must prove that a prospective juror possessed a biased motive on a claim of juror dishonesty in the jury selection process. -ii