In fact, we have explained that "jurors who initially misunderstand the law should not be removed for cause if, after explanation and rehabilitative efforts, the court believes that they can render a fair and impartial verdict based on the instructions given by the judge and the evidence presented at trial." People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 16, 401 P.3d 525, 529. Rather, a trial court must evaluate the prospective juror’s state of mind by assessing (1) the juror’s responses to questions posed by either counsel or the court and (2) the demeanor and body language of the juror throughout voir dire.

Every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a trial before a fair and impartial jury. See U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Colo. Const. art. II, § 16; see also People v. Clemens, 2017 CO 89, ¶ 15. To protect this right, a juror who is biased in favor of or against either side must be dismissed.

¶ 18 Every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. See U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV ; Colo. Const. art. II, § 16 ; see also People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 15, 401 P.3d 525. To protect this right, section 16-10-103(1)(j), C.R.S. 2021, and Crim. P. 24(b)(1)(X) require disqualification of a juror who indicates a bias in favor of or against either side, unless the court is satisfied that the juror will render an impartial verdict that is based solely upon the evidence and instructions of the court.

¶ 15 We review a trial court's ruling on a challenge for cause to a prospective juror for an abuse of discretion. People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 13, 401 P.3d 525. This standard defers to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prospective juror's responses, recognizes the trial court's unique role and perspective in evaluating the demeanor and body language of the prospective juror, and discourages reviewing courts from second-guessing the trial court based on a cold record. Id.

However, appellant cites case law from Colorado and Missouri for the proposition that a silent record supports the conclusion that a juror has been rehabilitated. See Colorado v. Clemens, 2017 CO 89 (2017); Edgar v. Missouri, 145 S.W.3d 458 (2004). He does not point us to any Ohio case law stating the same nor has our research revealed any.

A juror who initially misunderstands the law should not be removed for cause if, after explanation and rehabilitative efforts, the court believes that she can render a fair and impartial verdict based on the instructions given by the judge and the evidence presented at trial. People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 16, 401 P.3d 525. The court must examine the juror's statements or silence in light of the totality of the circumstances.

Those jurors should not be removed for cause if, after explanation and rehabilitative efforts, the court believes that they can render a fair and impartial verdict based on the instructions given by the judge and the evidence presented at trial. People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 16, 401 P.3d 525. C. Relevant Facts

¶ 31 A juror who initially misunderstands the law should not be removed for cause if, after explanation and rehabilitative efforts, the court believes that she can render a fair and impartial verdict based on the instructions given by the judge and the evidence presented at trial. People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 16, 401 P.3d 525. The court must examine the juror's statements or silence in light of the totality of the circumstances.

¶ 7 We review a trial court's ruling on a challenge for cause to prospective jurors for an abuse of discretion. People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 13, 401 P.3d 525. This standard gives deference to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of prospective jurors' responses, recognizes the trial court's unique role and perspective in evaluating the demeanor and body language of prospective jurors, and serves to discourage reviewing courts from second-guessing the trial court based on a cold record.

Ultimately, however, removal is required if the court finds actual prejudice or bias. See People v. Clemens , 2017 CO 89, ¶ 15, 401 P.3d 525. C. Discussion