Michelle Fleshner worked for Pepose Vision Institute (PVI), a surgical practice. She was fired after she provided information to the Department of Labor about PVI’s overtime pay policy. She sued for wrongful termination, and the jury awarded her $125,000. After the trial, a juror told PVI’s attorneys that another juror had made anti-Semitic statements during jury deliberations. The comments concerned a witness who testified on PVI’s behalf. According to the juror, the other juror said, about the witness: “She is a Jewish witch.” “She is a penny-pinching Jew.” “She was such a cheap Jew that she did not want to pay Plaintiff unemployment compensation.” Another juror confirmed the remarks. PVI filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. The trial judge held that the comments did not prevent a fair trial from occurring. PVI appealed. Do you think such comments are sufficient to require a new trial, or must a juror’s bias be discovered during voir dire for it to matter? Explain. [Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010)]