in question stated that she read a newspaper article describing the worst abuse case in the State of Georgia. She also stated that she read a second article containing facts about the allegations in the case, and that she heard the accused could not get out on bond. She stated, however, that she did not know the judge or whether the judge had made any findings, and she again affirmatively stated that she had not formed an opinion in the case. Based on the juror’s voir dire statements, the trial court denied Ellicott’s motion to excuse the potential juror for cause. Ellicott has failed to show that the potential juror’s opinion was so fixed and definite that it would not be changed by the evidence or the trial court’s evidentiary charge. See Nobles, supra, 201 Ga. App. at 487-488 (7) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse
holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike for cause two potential jurors who had heard andor read about the case but indicated that they could render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendants motions to dismiss jurors for cause when they all proclaimed that they could be impartial even though one juror admitted to a leaning towards a guilty verdict based upon pretrial publicity holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias