Appeal Undermined by Lack of Objection
On appeal, Hernandez’s attorneys argued that the trial judge should have removed Juror K for cause, citing implied and actual bias due to his investment in Walmart-related funds.
But the appeals panel—comprising Justices Audra M. Mori, Armen Tamzarian, and Judge Craig Van Rooyen—ruled that Hernandez’s failure to object or to request more peremptory challenges nullified her claim.
“Although Hernandez contends that the trial court committed structural error when it failed to remove K, our Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected requests to abandon the forfeiture rule,” the opinion read. “Counsel cannot accept a jury and later appeal when the verdict is unfavorable.”
The court emphasized that Hernandez’s attorneys twice told the court they “accepted the panel as seated,” even after Walmart’s counsel explicitly objected to preserve the record.
Claims of Bias Fall Flat
Hernandez’s team also claimed that Juror K’s stock ownership created implied bias, but the panel said her attorneys failed to argue or prove that mutual fund or ETF holdings met the legal threshold for bias.
Even if the objections had been preserved, the court noted, allowing Juror K to remain was “not manifestly unreasonable” given his demeanor and answers during questioning.
The decision underscores a crucial principle in trial law: failure to timely object waives the issue for appeal.
