a maid, and that she had heard about the facts of the case. According to Dunaway, if [M.B.] had divulged this information, his trial counsel would have removed her by a for-cause challenge or by exercising a peremptory strike. “Dunaway’s collateral counsel did not ask [trial counsel] if they would have removed [M.B.] if she had disclosed this information. Moreover, the trial record indicates that [M.B.] served as an alternate juror and was excused before the jury’s guilt phase deliberations began. Dunaway presented no evidence [M.B.] discussed her past associations with Mr. Whigham with members of his jury. If, for some reason, [M.B.] failed to answer questions during voir dire it would not have caused Dunaway to be prejudiced. See Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 32 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). “The Court finds that this, allegation of
holding that the defendant was not prejudiced when an ill juror after deliberations began left the other jurors accompanied by the trial judge to see a physician holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors holding no extrinsic evidence was brought into jury deliberations when in drug case two jurors discussed their personal life experiences with crack cocaine 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 there was simply no possibility reeves was harmed by jurors failure to recall their remote connections with reeves and the victim because both were excused before jury deliberations began andthere was no evidence they informed other jurors about their connections with the case