Key Points

  • Ninth Circuit vacates Bolandian's insider-trading conviction and remands for a new trial
  • Panel holds a district court's duty to investigate juror bias arising during trial cannot be waived by defense counsel
  • Trial judge's instruction for the juror to self-report continued bias improperly delegated the court's investigative duty
  • Because no proper investigation occurred, the claim was forfeited (not waived), triggering plain-error review that favored a new trial

The Ninth Circuit vacated Shahriyar Bolandian's conviction on six counts of insider trading, holding that the district court plainly erred when it failed to adequately investigate a juror who told the judge, unprompted, that he was not sure he could be impartial.

The case arose from trades Bolandian made using nonpublic information about two corporate mergers involving J.P. Morgan, where his college friend Ashish Aggarwal worked as an investment banking analyst. Bolandian had borrowed approximately $230,000 from family and friends to fund his trading, and by early 2013 he and Aggarwal had lost over $200,000 on a series of unsuccessful trades. On the two deals at issue, Bolandian netted roughly $25,000 and $2,500 in a merger involving PLX Technologies, and roughly $300,000 and $100,000 in a later deal involving ExactTarget. Aggarwal was tried separately and acquitted on most counts; Bolandian was convicted and sentenced to 24 months in prison.

At issue on appeal was the district court's handling of Juror No. 6, who sent a note during trial disclosing a possible connection between his uncle and a witness. The judge called the juror into court and, after confirming he had not spoken with his uncle, asked whether he still felt he could be fair to both sides.

"Honestly, I am not sure, Your Honor."

The judge followed up by asking, "you're not sure whether you can be fair?" and the juror answered, "Yes, Your Honor." Rather than pressing further, the judge told him that his uncertainty was "probably a good thing since you haven't heard all the evidence yet" and instructed him to speak up later if the feeling persisted once he had heard all of the evidence.

Defense counsel did not object at the time, stating it had "no objection to his continuing to serve," and after closing arguments affirmatively agreed that the juror could continue serving without further voir dire. That juror went on to become the jury foreman. The government argued on appeal that this agreement waived any juror-bias challenge.

Writing for the panel, Judge Wardlaw rejected that argument, holding that a district court's duty to investigate juror bias arising during trial functions as a threshold requirement for any valid waiver by counsel.

We hold that, at minimum, defense counsel may not waive the district court's duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into juror bias that emerges during trial. Because such an investigation would be a prerequisite to a knowing waiver of a juror bias claim, no waiver occurred here.

The panel found that the trial judge's approach--instructing the juror to self-monitor and report back--improperly shifted the court's own responsibility onto the juror, citing prior circuit precedent addressing similar self-monitoring arrangements as insufficient to cure the underlying doubt about impartiality.

Rather than inquire further into the reasons for Juror No. 6's feelings of bias, or make an attempt to rehabilitate him, the district judge put the onus on Juror No. 6 to monitor his own bias. In doing so, the district judge abdicated his indispensable role in preserving for the accused an impartial jury.

Because Bolandian's trial counsel could not waive the court's independent investigative obligation, the panel treated the claim as forfeited rather than waived, triggering plain-error review rather than foreclosing review altogether. Applying that standard, the panel concluded the error was plain, affected Bolandian's substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings--without requiring any separate showing of actual prejudice.

The panel noted the tension between Aggarwal's acquittal and Bolandian's conviction on related facts, observing that the presence of even one potentially biased juror is enough to void the verdict regardless of outcome elsewhere. The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial, leaving unresolved broader questions about whether juror-bias claims constitute structural error or require a defendant's personal waiver.