Those comments led the defense to ask the court to remove L.D. as a prospective juror. That request was withdrawn after the prosecution asked L.D. whether she would ignore extraneous information if directed to do so by the court.
Arterburn’s appeal argues that claim of impartiality was “unpersuasive in the face of multiple statements to the contrary,” while the state said the statement that L.D. could follow court instructions absolved her of the previous statements.
The appeals court’s ruling makes it clear questions remain about the selection of L.D. for the jury. But the court declined to decide the issue now. Additional appeal proceedings in which Arterburn’s attorney, “would have an opportunity to explain his decision to leave L.D. on the jury,” are possible.
The ruling was far from a total victory for Arterburn. The court affirmed his conviction and rejected several points in the appeal, including prosecutorial misconduct. But it left the option of further appeals open.