Commonwealth v. Fisette, Appeals Court No. 22-P-0351 

In a case where the defendant was convicted of operating under the inlfue. All of the prospective jurors were asked whether they thought it was improper to drink any alcohol and drive. The defendant challenged all of the prospective jurors that responded in the affirmative to this question. The judge followed up by asking the challenged jurors whether they could impartially follow his instructions. The defendant argued that any juror that responded in the affirmative should have been excused.

The Appeals Court disagreed. The court concluded that the follow-up questioning by the judge adequately ensured that none of the jurors were biased.