Under the deferential abuse of discretion standard used to review trial court orders granting a new trial, this decision affirms a new trial order based on juror misconduct.  It finds there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implied finding that the defendant had not forfeited its right to complain of bias by failing to act promptly (before verdict) upon learning facts showing juror bias.  The facts defendant knew didn’t necessarily show that the juror was lying as opposed to making innocent mistaken responses to the juror questionnaire.  Defendant was not required to engage in oral voir dire of subjects covered by the written questionnaire when the juror’s written answers didn’t trigger suspicion.  There was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the juror had intentionally misrepresented material facts in response to the questionnaire and that her responses prejudiced the defendant since the verdicts against defendant were 9-3 and the trial court found on substantial evidence that defendant would have stricken the juror had she given truthful answers to the juror questionnaire.