or even that the jurors had formed an opinion on the witness’s credibility. Rather, the comment was merely a passing idle observation about the witness’s family resolve the issue of juror misconduct without conducting a voir dire examination of the jurors to determine the intent or meaning of their contact with Detective Smith, whether they had reach a fixed opinion as to Dillard’s guilt, and whether they had engaged in premature deliberations. Where there is a serious allegation of bias or possible prejudice, “[t]he trial judge [has] an affirmative obligation to inquire whether the juror could nonetheless render a fair and impartial verdict” by conducting a voir dire examination of the juror prior to ruling on the motion. Wilson v. Morris, 317 Md. 284, 304, 563 A.2d 392, 401 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Determining whether there is prejudice is the
holding that the voir dire examination was imperative in determining whether good cause existed sufficient to support the allegation of juror bias holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the court has a duty to resolve the issue of prejudice arising out of jury misconduct even though the defense could have requested a voir dire examination of the juror in its motion to disqualify holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause