Perez in the middle of the defense’s case-in-chief. This rule does not leave a party without recourse, however, in situations where it is discovered that a juror has committed misconduct. Rule 3.280 requires the trial court to replace, with an alternate, jurors who, “prior to the t . For instance, in Dery, a juror failed to disclose- that she had taken a course that included the study of DNA evidence, and the State’s questions during voir dire required her to disclose this training. Upon learning mid-trial that the juror had taken a seventeen-week course in forensic science, the defense sought to remove her from the jury. The trial court’s refusal to do so was held to be an abuse of discretion. Dery, 68 So.3d at 255; see also Washington v. State, 955 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). We agree with McNeil that the facts of Bigham
holding that the state could ask leading questions of its witness a codefendant who had entered a plea after witness initially refused to answer questions in violation of her plea agreement holding that when the victim calmly responded to questions at the police station with officers often asking leading questions the statements were testimonial holding that trial court committed reversible error by removing a juror who despite the courts invitation to ask questions was perceived to be asking too many questions some of which appeared hostile to the state holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction