Whether the Fifth Circuit's newly created rule under the principle of 'interpretati logica' allowing rehabilitation of a biased juror is contrary to the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : QUESTION NUMBER ONE: The Fifth Circuit has announced a newly created rule under the principle of “interpretati logica," and delared: "Once a panelist in voir dire selection verbally expresses an actual bias, that Panelist will be rehabilitated as long, as he or she remains silent for the remainer of jury selection.".See Canfield v. Lumpkin, 998 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2021). Therefore, should this Honorable Supreme Court overrule the newly declared rule as being contrary to the founding Constitution and the many precedents set by this Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana, Irvin v. Dowd, and Patton v. Yount? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Because Counsel allowéd an actually biased panelist to be seated as a juror, | is Justice Willett's decision contrary to Strickland for holding prejudice is “ not automatic requiring a new trial under Weaver, and that Petitioner failed to "prove prejudice necessitating a new trial? see Canfield v. Lumpkin, 998 F.3d | 242 (5th Cir. 2021). QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Being that an impartial jury trial is the cornerstone of our American Justice System, when a panelist verbally declares to vote to convict even if the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and announcing her impairment to perform her duties as a juror in accordance with her instruc--: tionzand.cath. Is the seating of an actually bias juror to determine guilt-inno; cence and punishment a structural error? If so, should this Honorable Court explicitly announce that the seating of a bias juror is a structural error, . _. that cannot be considered harmless? . ;