In the 1995 double-murder trial of O.J. Simpson, a jury of 12 returned a not guilty verdict after a surprisingly short deliberation. But perhaps even more surprising: the jury didn’t consist of the same 12 people who had started the case.
The vast majority of the originally seated jury in the Simpson case had been dismissed over the course of the eight-month trial, leaving a group mostly consisting of alternates to render the final decision.
One juror was dismissed because he worked at Hertz, the rental car company where Simpson had served as a celebrity spokesman. Another allegedly gambled on the trial’s outcome. A third was dismissed after telling the judge, “I can’t take it anymore.”
In the end, only four of the original 12 jurors remained.
Although exceptional in its magnitude, the Simpson trial isn’t unique in this regard. Jurors are dismissed from trials for all kinds of reasons—and the controversy often surrounds their exits.
Juror Misconduct
After a jury has been selected, its members are expected to meet basic obligations to the court, e.g., showing up to the courthouse on time each day, staying awake throughout the proceedings and deliberating with fellow jurors until reaching a unanimous verdict. Some jurors are dismissed when they fail to meet those basic duties.
In the murder trial of Jordan Tate—a man who shot up a Milwaukee bar, killing one and wounding two others—one of the 14 jurors showed up late on the very first day of trial, delaying its start. That same juror later slept during the trial, snoring through testimony. He was dismissed soon thereafter.
Others have been dismissed for their failure to deliberate on the verdict: a legally murkier reason for removal. After all, a single juror’s stubbornness is an acceptable part of the judicial process. It’s why some cases end up with hung juries, wherein no verdict is rendered.
That’s what the California Supreme Court concluded when they helped overturn Roshay Cleveland’s conviction for two counts of attempted armed robbery of a liquor store in 1997. Cleveland had been convicted after Juror No. 1 was removed from the jury following their refusal to deliberate. Cleveland’s defense successfully argued that the juror’s removal had been a violation of Cleveland’s right to a unanimous verdict.
What Was Jeffrey Dahmer's Murder Trial Like?
On January 13, 1992, the serial killer changed his plea from not guilty to guilty but insane, which removed the need for a criminal trial and forced the verdict to be based on the jury's decision of his mental state.
On January 13, 1992, the serial killer changed his plea from not guilty to guilty but insane, which removed the need for a criminal trial and forced the verdict to be based on the jury's decision of his mental state.
Bias or Prejudice
Jurors are often dismissed during the initial jury selection process (also known as “voir dire”) because either the prosecution or defense decides that the prospective juror is unable to remain impartial.
But bias (or the perception of it) can get jurors dismissed even after the case has begun, often when the judge determines that a juror has withheld important information during the voir dire process that may have impacted their impartiality.
In the aforementioned Simpson case, one juror was dismissed after it came to light that she had been a victim of domestic violence—something she’d failed to disclose during voir dire.
In the 2025 sex trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, a juror was dismissed for having misrepresented where he lived during voir dire, which the judge said might’ve been reflective of the juror’s desire to “be deceptive,” get seated on the case, and sway the outcome.
Personal Circumstance
Other jurors are dismissed from their cases because they simply refuse to do their job, often citing anxiety around personal safety as a reason to get themselves removed from duty.
That’s what happened in the federal case of Joaquin Guzman, the Mexican drug lord known as “El Chapo,” who was tried and convicted in 2019 on dozens of drug-related crimes and a murder conspiracy. During jury selection, several prospective jurors were dismissed after saying that they feared that their lives would be at risk for serving.
A similar situation occurred in the 2024 hush money trial of President Donald Trump, where a juror was removed after telling prosecutors that she feared her identity would be publicly revealed, thereby affecting her ability to remain impartial.
Disqualification from Serving
There are several conditions that can disqualify a prospective juror from serving. Non-citizens, for example, are not allowed to serve on a jury anywhere in the United States.
Other conditions can vary wildly from state to state. Some states, like South Carolina, disqualify anyone who has served more than one year of prison time, whereas in Maine, the state government has no legal problem with any level of criminality in prospective jurors, meaning that even the currently incarcerated are allowed to serve.
Mental and physical disabilities can disqualify a prospective juror as well, although this too can be a source of contention that gets adjudicated in the courts.
In March 2025, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney Albert Elia sued the New York Court System after he was kicked off a jury. Elia, who is blind, alleges that he was removed from a grand jury because he could not watch the video evidence. He found the situation tantamount to discrimination on the part of the court system.
A similar challenge on behalf of the deaf, made by Little Rock, Ark., resident James Bradley Quinn, was successful in changing the law in Arkansas so that deaf people are able to serve on juries there.
