{"id":100,"date":"2026-04-21T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=100"},"modified":"2026-04-21T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T12:00:00","slug":"united-states-v-bolandian-juror-bias-investigation-sixth-amendment-insider-trading","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=100","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Bolandian \u2014 Ninth Circuit vacates insider-trading conviction, holding the trial court abdicated its duty to investigate a juror who said he might not be impartial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
United States v. Bolandian<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-21<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
25-355<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Sixth Amendment; juror bias; impartial jury; trial court duty to investigate; insider trading; plain error review; waiver versus forfeiture<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Shahriyar Bolandian was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on six counts of insider trading. The case arose from his trading on confidential information about pending mergers that his college friend Ashish Aggarwal had access to as a J.P. Morgan investment banking analyst in the firm’s Technology, Media, and Telecom group.<\/p>\n

During trial, Juror No. 6 came forward and told the court that he was not sure he could be impartial. The trial judge did not conduct any meaningful inquiry. He did not ask follow-up questions, did not try to rehabilitate the juror, and did not develop a record about why the juror was concerned about his own impartiality. Instead, the judge essentially handed the question back to the juror himself and asked him to monitor his own bias going forward. Defense counsel agreed to let the juror remain on the panel. Bolandian was convicted, and the trial court denied his motions for acquittal and a new trial.<\/p>\n

On appeal, Bolandian argued that the district court’s failure to investigate the juror violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The government countered that defense counsel’s on-the-record agreement to keep Juror No. 6 amounted to a waiver, foreclosing the issue on appeal.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Ninth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The opinion is a strong statement about the trial court’s independent duty to investigate juror bias once the issue is squarely raised during trial.<\/p>\n

First, the court rejected the government’s waiver argument. A criminal defendant cannot “waive” a juror-bias claim if the trial court failed to conduct the inquiry that would let the defense make an informed choice about whether to keep the juror. A meaningful inquiry by the court is a prerequisite to any knowing waiver. Defense counsel’s after-the-fact agreement to leave the juror in place therefore meant the issue was forfeited (subject to plain-error review), not waived (foreclosed entirely).<\/p>\n

Second, applying plain-error review, the court held that the trial judge plainly erred in failing to investigate Juror No. 6. Once a juror affirmatively says he is unsure whether he can be impartial, the trial court has a duty to develop the record — through follow-up questions, attempts at rehabilitation, or other means — before deciding whether to retain or strike the juror. The judge here delegated that responsibility to the juror himself, asking the juror to police his own bias. That was an abdication of the court’s gatekeeping role.<\/p>\n

Third, the court held the error affected Bolandian’s substantial rights and undermined the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the proceedings. Nothing in the record provided assurance that Juror No. 6 was actually impartial when he served. Because the Sixth Amendment guarantees an impartial jury, the only proper remedy was a new trial.<\/p>\n

Because the juror-bias issue alone required vacating the conviction, the court did not reach Bolandian’s other appellate issues, which included claims about the admission of statements from his alleged tipper, prosecutorial misstatement of the reasonable-doubt standard, and sentencing.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n