Defendants could establish that the jurors’ answers were dishonest, they failed to show that an honest answer regarding the familial relationships would have supported a challenge for cause. Implied bias is found in only “extraordinary cases” based on all the relevant circumstances. Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir.1998). No extraordinary circumstances exist here: (a) no court has presumed bias based on familial relationships alone; (b) the jurors answered accurately and honestly the questions asked of them and pledged under oath that they could impartially weigh the evidence; and (c) the Defendants did not allege that the jurors knew of these familial relationships or even that the jurors knew the witnesses personally. Cf. Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 767 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Without something more, these are not
holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b holding that a jurors failure to volunteer details when he was not asked a specific question does not imply intentional dishonesty holding that the sixth and fourteenth amendments imply the right to selfrepresentation holding that intentional acts exclusion applies to intentional act of child molestation holding that a qui tam relator may not present general allegations in lieu of details of actual false claims in the hope that such details will emerge through subsequent discovery