the jury retires to consider its verdict, become unable or disqualified to perform their duties.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.280(a); accord Nicholas v. State, 47 So.3d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). For example, a juror is properly excused when it is discovered mid-trial that the juror was untruthful or inaccurate in answering questions during voir dire. See, e.g., Nicholas, 47 So.3d at 303 (“[A] juror’s concealment of material information during voir dire provides good cause for removal of that juror mid-trial and substitution with an alternate juror.”). The trial judge is vested with discretion in determining whether a juror has engaged in misconduct that warrants removal from the jury. Dery v. State, 68 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see also Wilson v. State, 608 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). However, that discretion -is not without
holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror for cause holding that appellant failed to meet his burden of showing that the trial court violated his right to a public trial by sealing jury questionnaires used in open court during voir dire holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in removing juror who failed to disclose her ill feelings toward the state attorneys office during voir dire