the evidence and reach a just conclusion. King v. State, 287 Md. 530, 535, 414 A.2d 909 (1980). The court’s decision to strike a juror for cause will not constitute a ground for reversal absent an abuse of discretion. There are two situations in which a trial court’s exercise of discretion may constitute reversible error. First, a party may allege that the trial judge failed to make an adequate inquiry into the likelihood of bias before electing to strike the juror. King v. State, 287 Md. at 537, 414 A.2d 909; Stokes v. State, 72 Md.App. 673, 677, 532 A.2d 189 (1987). Second, a party may allege that there was no reasonable basis from which the court could conclude that the juror was incapable of giving fair consideration to the evidence. See Stokes, 72 Md.App. at 677-78, 532 A.2d 189 (<HOLDING>). In civil cases, an appellate court will not
holding that the mere exchange of smiles between the juror and appellant without more did not amount to a showing of bias holding the delays of more than six years did not amount to the denial of access to the courts holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow discovery on the issue of bias because there was no evidence in the administrative record showing bias and because allegations of error in the evaluation of proposals are insufficient to overcome the presumption that the contracting officer acted in good faith