In the case of Smith, Correctional Superintendent v. Phillips in 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a criminal defendant's due process rights were violated when it was discovered after trial that one juror had applied for employment as an investigator in the District Attorney's office during the trial. The defense argued this created bias and sought to overturn his conviction based on jury impartiality grounds. However, the court ruled against him stating that while such circumstances are troubling and should be avoided, they do not automatically constitute a violation of constitutional rights to fair trial unless actual bias can be proven by defendants which wasn't done here. Therefore, mere suspicion or potential for bias is insufficient; there must be demonstrable prejudice or substantial risk thereof impacting judgment.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Phillips, Justice O'Connor argued that due process requires a hearing when juror misconduct is alleged. She believed that the majority's decision to allow trial judges to decide on their own whether or not a hearing was necessary could lead to unfair trials and undermine public confidence in the justice system. She also disagreed with the majority's assertion that habeas corpus relief should be denied unless there was clear evidence of actual bias, arguing instead that potential bias should be enough to warrant further investigation. In her view, even if it were difficult to prove actual bias in some cases, this did not mean it was acceptable for jurors who may have been biased against defendants from serving on juries.