After she was found guilty of obstruction of justice and conspiracy (see Chapter 8), lawyers for Martha Stewart filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that a juror on the case had possible undisclosed bias. The defense lawyers pointed out that juror Chappel Hartridge had checked “No” on the juror questionnaire when asked whether he had been accused of, charged with, or convicted of a crime. The lawyers for Ms. Stewart filed an affidavit from a former girlfriend of Mr. Hartridge’s who indicated that he had been arrested and arraigned on charges of assaulting her. Mr. Hartridge’s former girlfriend ultimately dropped the charges against him. What bias do you think Ms. Stewart’s lawyers alleged? Are they right? Should the juror have been eliminated for cause? [U.S.‡v Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y.2004)]