United States v. Bolandian

── United States v. Bolandian ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-355 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:15-cr-00465- TJH-2 v. SHAHRIYAR BOLANDIAN, OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 4, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed April 21, 2026 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges, and Jeffrey Vincent Brown, District Judge. * Opinion by Judge Wardlaw * The Honorable Jeffrey Vincent Brown, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 2 USA V. BOLANDIAN SUMMARY ** Criminal Law The panel vacated Shahriyar Bolandian’s insider-trading conviction and remanded for a new trial in a case in which Bolandian contended that the district court erred by refusing to dismiss a juror for bias after the juror told the judge he was not sure could be impartial. The government argued that Bolandian’s counsel’s agreement with Juror No. 6’s continued service waived Bolandian’s ability to challenge Juror No. 6 for bias on appeal. The panel held that the district court’s independent duty to investigate juror bias that emerges during trial is a prerequisite to any knowing waiver of a juror bias claim, and that defense counsel may not waive the district court’s duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into juror bias that emerges during trial. Because no such investigation took place here, Bolandian forfeited—rather than waived—his challenge to Juror 6 for actual bias on appeal. Reviewing for plain error, the panel held that Bolandian is entitled to a new trial. Juror No. 6 came forward to express bias, and the district court impermissibly delegated its responsibility to investigate the juror for bias to the juror himself, who served for the remainder of trial. The panel concluded that this was plain error, as the district court violated its duty to erect and employ a suitable framework for investigating the bias allegation and gauging its effects. Rather than inquire further into the reasons for Juror ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  USA V. BOLANDIAN 3 No. 6’s feelings of bias, or make an attempt to rehabilitate him, the district judge put the onus on Juror No. 6 to monitor his own bias. In doing so, the district judge abdicated his indispensable role in preserving for the accused an impartial jury. Nor does the record provide other assurances that Juror No. 6 was not actually biased. The panel held that the district court thus plainly erred in failing to strike Juror No. 6 from the jury, and that the errors affected Bolandian’s substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. COUNSEL Andrew M. Roach (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Deputy Chief, General Crimes Section; William Larsen, Attorney; Ali Moghaddas, Solomon D. Kim, and Jonathan Galatzan, Assistant United States Attorneys; Christina T. Shay, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division; Bilal A. Essayli, Acting United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Los Angeles, California; Jeremy R. Sanders, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Ju