The Court stated in granting certiorari in the case of United States v. Martinez-Salazar that the issue it would consider was whether a criminal defendant is entitled to an automatic reversal of the conviction where a trial judge erroneously failed to remove a prospective juror for cause, the defendant subsequently used a peremptory challenge to remove that juror, and the defendant ultimately exhausted all of the peremptory challenges. One prospective juror in a trial for drug and firearm offenses had stated a tendency to favor the prosecution. The judge concluded that dismissal of the juror was not required because the juror had also stated that he could follow the court's instructions and did not know for certain what he would do if seated as a juror. The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. Analysis of the issues involved suggests that the perspectives of litigants, jurors, and trial court judges are relatively distinct perspectives associated with this case and that the perspective that the Supreme Court believes is most relevant may drive the resolution of the case. The Court reversed the appellate court decision in January 2000 and held that a criminal defendant is not entitled to a reversal of the conviction under these circumstances of no juror identified as biased sat on the jury and no indication existed that the trial court deliberately misapplied the law to force the defendant to use a peremptory challenge to correct the judge's error. Notes and 61 references