Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the district court failed to adequately probe a juror’s potential bias after the juror indicated he was “not sure” he could remain impartial.
United States v. Bolandian, Case No. 25-355 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026), arises from allegations that a Los Angeles-based trader traded on confidential tips provided by a friend who worked as an analyst at an investment bank. According to the Department of Justice, the trader used that information to purchase call options in two companies in advance of their announced mergers, yielding roughly $425,000 in profits for himself and certain family members. A jury convicted him on six counts of insider trading and the district court imposed a 24-month prison sentence. A co-defendant, tried separately years before, was acquitted.
The appeal focused on events during jury selection and trial. Juror No. 6 disclosed that his uncle owned a private investment firm, had done business with the same investment bank involved in the case, and might have had a connection to a trial witness. When asked whether he could remain impartial, the juror stated he was “not sure.” The district court did not pursue further questioning or make findings on the record, instead instructing the juror to raise any continuing concerns after hearing the evidence. Notably, defense counsel did not object and later agreed that no additional inquiry was necessary. The juror remained on the panel without further comment and ultimately served as foreperson. Following his conviction, the defendant appealed.
On appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated the trader’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. As a threshold matter, the court applied plain-error review, concluding that defense counsel’s agreement to proceed with Juror No. 6 did not waive the trader’s juror-bias claim. The panel emphasized that a district court has an independent duty to investigate credible indications of juror bias that arise during trial, and that duty must be discharged before any waiver can be knowing. Applying that standard, the panel held that the district court plainly erred by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry and instead placing the burden on the juror to self-assess his impartiality. The juror’s repeated statement that he was “not sure” he could be fair, the court explained, fell short of any affirmative assurance of impartiality. Interestingly, the panel cited the juror’s subsequent role as foreperson and the divergent outcomes between the trader and his acquitted co-defendant as reasons that it could not rule out the possibility that bias affected the verdict.
Implications for Defense Counsel. The Ninth Circuit’s decision underscores the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury. When a juror expresses uncertainty about his or her ability to be fair, courts are required to conduct a meaningful inquiry. That obligation rests with the court; it cannot be satisfied by a juror’s self-assessment or by defense counsel’s silence or acquiescence.
Bolandian offers several practical takeaways. When a juror signals potential bias, counsel should press for a thorough, on-the-record inquiry. At the same time, the decision provides an important appellate backstop: even absent an objection, a defendant does not waive a juror-bias claim where the record fails to reflect that the court adequately investigated a colorable concern. The opinion does leave open whether a true waiver is possible when a sufficient inquiry has been conducted. That distinction matters: a forfeited claim is reviewed for plain error, and, as the Ninth Circuit reiterated, the presence of even a single biased juror is structural error requiring a new trial.
It is yet to be seen if the Department of Justice will seek to challenge the panel’s decision. Pursuant to the Federal Rules, the time to file for either a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is May 5, 2026.
This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.
