the jurors and a key witness creates an appearance of impropriety that must be resolved by the court. Unlike in other motions, where if the party does not carry its burden, the trial court is within its discretion to deny the motion, cases of juror misconduct will undermine the appearance of and the integrity of the judicial process itself. Impropriety and the appearance of impropriety must be avoided because it “casts a shadow over the trial process, which necessarily diminishes the integrity of the system in the minds of defendants and the public itself.” Jenkins, 375 Md. at 328, 825 A.2d at 1034. Thus, the trial court has an obligation to resolve questions of impropriety or threats to the integrity of the jury trial. See United States v. Sears, 663 F.2d 896, 900 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 535 Pa. 549, 637 A.2d
holding that where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is grounded in the claim that counsel failed to strike a biased juror a defendant must show that the juror was actually biased against him holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added holding that the failure to strike potentially biased juror was not iac where decision was based on trial strategy holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror for cause holding that though judge did not question juror individually note from juror to judge requesting private meeting to ask legal question did not suggest juror would not base verdict on evidence