I got news for you,brother. Caselaw protects criminal defendants from dishonest jurors who may very well have an agenda-driven drive for "the big payback". Depending on the wording of the jury questionaire, and the level of outright dishonesty by the juror, the court will, at a minimum, have a hearing to create a record for review.
If it turns out that the juror acted in bad faith and purposely mislead the defense during voir dire, Martha may very well be granted a new trial. At a minimum, it creates a genuine issue which will give grounds for bail pending appeal.
All you Martha haters may have danced in the endzone prematurely. If the Judge grants a new trial, the matter will most likely end up in a plea bargain, since everyone has now seen the show. Martha will have to accept some "nuisance time", and you can all get your Mike Tyson-being led out in cuffs perp walk that you want to see.
While you're in that frame of mind, let's say some vile things about Yoko Ono.

Don't worry don't worry don't worry don't worry don'tworry don'tworry KYOKO!!!

Why would she get a new trial as a result of a juror having a criminal conviction for something having nothing to do with what she was convicted of? How is she prejudiced? How is she going to show that there's a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different if she had kept that guy off the jury?

And I don't see how a juror's post-trial comment that he sees the verdict as protective of regular people necessarily shows bias. That's a reasonable interpretation of the facts that came out at trial, whether or not one agrees with it. She was convicted of lying during an investigation, and you can very reasonably see that as a victory for the little guy in the sense that nobody gets to lie to the FBI, even rich people. Furthermore, that would appear to me to have zero to do with the issue of the juror lying on the jury questionnaire.

From what I know, it's enormously difficult to get a new trial based on bad behavior by the jury, or based on errors in jury selection. It seems to me that the issue of the past conviction is going to be found largely irrelevant, and the comment about the "little guy" supporting a new trial is pretty much frivolous.

She did what she's accused of doing. She'd be better off sucking it up, doing her (relatively soft) sentence, and starting down the road of rehabilitating her reputation, rather than continuing to make herself look like a bigger and bigger jackass.

As a 23 year prosecutor, I know that every criminal defendant who faces the loss of their liberty deserves a fair trial from an unbiased jury. As I understand it, this juror has a history of woman beating and hostility to women. If such is proven true, the voir dire process of picking a jury is designed to expose this. If this had come out, the Judge would most likely have excused the juror for cause. This peabrained juror who almost tripped over himself for his 5 minutes of fame poisoned the process by lying in the Questionaire.Like it or not, the result is a tainted trial which probably will not stand. As to that point, one's opinion on her guilt is irrelevant.
She may very well have done what she is charged with. None of us, however, benefits from an unjust conviction. I have tried a man twice, and put him on death row twice because of a court ruling that the first trial was tainted. You buckle up your boots, and go back for a second trial because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
It lets you sleep better at night.

I don't think the conviction is unjust. I think the arguments she's making are frivolous. All I'm saying is that based on what I know, getting a verdict sacked on appeal based on a juror's post-trial conduct is practically impossible. Absent some demonstration of prejudice based on specific allegations that he influenced other jurors, I think it's going nowhere for her. It doesn't make what he did okay; if he perjured himself, he perjured himself. But absent some indication that his old assault conviction influenced the trial, I don't see her getting her case overturned.

(Incidentally, being told that something is "the right thing to do" in all caps just makes me tune out. I can't speak for others, but you basically lose me right there.)

Hey, you think Martha's argument is bad, right now I'm handling a matter with a guy who admitted in his court testimony that he shot the victim numerous times (hint: more than ten) and bragged about it to his friends afterwards, but is trying to get relief because he says he didn't mean to hurt the guy, let alone kill him. All of those claims get heard, regardless of stupidity, because of constitutional rights; and the judges (thankfully) get to dismiss the vast majority of them. Martha's claim isn't special: if she didn't prevail at trial she's gonna have to show actual prejudice to get relief (like, show that if they'd known about his prior they could have/would have gotten him off the panel, AND that the guy actually somehow swayed the rest of the jury into convicting when they otherwise would not have done so). Heh. Good luck, Martha.