the fact that this response came only after she had been separately called back and asked leading questions, and her subsequent statement that “it’s just kind of hard not to, you know, give them just a tiny bit more respect because they do protect the people.” Moreover, the transcript hints that Ockerman was eager to please the trial judge as she remarked, “I’ll do whatever you tell me to, because my dad tells me what a great judge you are.” In short, given the entirety of the exchange, we find that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to excuse juror Ockerman for cause. See Singleton, 783 So.2d at 973 (applying abuse of discretion standard). Consequently, we reverse Scott’s convictions and remand for a new trial. See Davis v. State, 656 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(<HOLDING>). REVERSED and REMANDED. STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and
holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus holding wrongful granting of states challenge for cause reversible error holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error holding that it was reversible error for the trial court to consider cumulative error in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel