Call us now:
We all have beliefs that we rely on every day about human beings and honesty. Our society wouldn’t function if everything that was said by every person was questioned and scrutinized. But criminal accusations are different and couldn’t be more different.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently reversed Ruibens Salomon’s conviction for sexual battery on his minor daughter after the trial court denied a cause challenge to a juror who openly admitted he would automatically believe child witnesses over adults. The appellate court found this undermined Salomon’s right to a fair trial, requiring a new trial.
Salomon came dangerously close to being imprisoned for nearly 20 years based on a verdict from a jury that was not impartial—proof that a single unqualified juror can derail the entire justice process.
This ruling underscores how razor-thin the margin can be between justice and a wrongful conviction—Salomon was nearly sentenced to 20 years in prison based on the vote of a juror who admitted he would inherently trust the child accuser over the adult defendant. Without appellate intervention, Salomon would have served a 237-month prison sentence based on the opinion of a juror predisposed to believe one side—stripping him of liberty, reputation, and future, all without a truly neutral jury.
During voir dire, defense counsel asked jurors if they would view a child witness as inherently more credible than an adult. One prospective juror stated, “Absolutely… I believe a child would speak more credibly and honestly than an adult.” Despite this clear bias, the trial court denied a cause challenge to strike the juror. Salomon’s defense used a peremptory strike but was denied a request for an additional strike to remove another objectionable juror.
Legal Principles Applied
Florida law requires every juror to be able to render a verdict solely on the evidence and legal instructions, free from bias or preconceived notions. § 913.03(10), Fla. Stat. (2021) allows cause challenges if a juror’s state of mind prevents impartiality.
- Jurors with fixed views favoring one type of witness—like children—must be excused.
Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473, 484 (Fla. 2013). - A verdict by a biased juror undermines confidence in the justice system.
§ 913.03(10), Fla. Stat. (2021); Guardado v. State, 176 So. 3d 886, 897 (Fla. 2015).
Salomon’s liberty was placed in the hands of someone who admitted he couldn’t view adult testimony equally. If not caught on appeal, this structural flaw would have permanently destroyed Salomon’s freedom and family legacy. Salomon’s case exemplifies this principle. The juror’s belief that children are more credible—unrebutted and unrehabilitated—was enough to raise doubt about impartiality. Yet the court let that juror remain in the pool, which triggered a domino effect that ultimately compromised the fairness of the entire panel.
Essential Procedural Requirements
✅ Object to juror for cause
✅ Use peremptory strike if denied
✅ Request additional strike
✅ Identify the next objectionable juror
✅ Renew objection before jury is sworn
These steps preserved the error, which the appellate court recognized as prejudicial. Without strict adherence to this multi-step preservation process, Salomon’s appeal could have been barred. His defense had to walk a razor-thin line to safeguard his right to a fair trial—any missed step could have sealed his fate with a biased jury.
Why the Reversal Was Required
The prospective juror made unambiguous statements favoring child witnesses: “Absolutely I would give more credibility to a child.” No attempt at rehabilitation was made.
With such comments on record and no corrective action taken, Salomon’s conviction rested on a verdict that was legally suspect. The appeals court intervened just in time—had it not, Salomon could have spent decades behind bars based on a juror’s unchallenged personal belief, not facts.
The trial court did not attempt to rehabilitate the juror, despite multiple opportunities. Rehabilitation is often the proper next step when bias is exposed. (Sears v. State, 307 So. 3d 746, 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020))
Florida law is clear: if a juror expresses bias that casts doubt on their impartiality, and the court neither excuses nor rehabilitates them, that is reversible error.
Controlling Precedents
- Campbell v. State, 241 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) – improper denial of cause challenge in child sex abuse case warranted reversal. The appellate court drew a strong comparison to Campbell v. State, 241 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), where a juror who believed “kids don’t lie” about abuse was improperly kept in the jury pool. In Campbell, like in Salomon’s case, the defense exhausted peremptories, requested another strike, and identified a second biased juror who ended up on the jury.
- Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013) – juror bias and preservation of cause challenges.
- Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985) – denial of cause challenges in criminal cases is per se reversible.
Precedent was on Salomon’s side—but it took precise preservation and a compelling appeal to avoid life-altering consequences from a flawed jury panel.
Conclusion
This case is a powerful reminder that juror impartiality is not negotiable. When a court allows biased jurors to stay, a person’s life can be forever and unjustly altered.
Salomon’s ordeal is a cautionary tale: without vigilant defense strategy and appellate review, a man could have spent nearly two decades in prison—based not on the evidence, but on a juror’s admitted bias. The justice system must remain alert to these failures if it is to remain fair. One biased juror can taint an entire trial, especially in emotionally charged cases involving child victims. Defense attorneys must be precise in preserving cause challenges and unwavering in protecting the right to an impartial jury.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.