Rafael Matarranz v. State of Florida — Canady, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Canady, dissenting, would have approved the decision under review because the trial court did not commit manifest error in finding the challenged juror qualified to serve. He argued that the majority improperly displaced the trial court's credibility determination, disregarded the statutory framework permitting rehabilitation of a biased juror who declares an ability to be impartial, and substituted a categorical rule for individualized review. Justice Labarga, concurring, would have gone further by holding that a juror's reservations arising from adverse personal experience cannot be genuinely rehabilitated.