Bill Bryan was a defense attorney facing a difficult situation. His client, Clarisse Darrow, was charged with driving while intoxicated and manslaughter of a passenger, her son, who was killed when the car she was driving left the road on a curve and hit a tree. One of the potential jurors, J. T. Scopes, had declared in written and oral voir dire that he could fairly and impartially decide the issues in the case. In fact, when the defense team had reviewed the jury pool, Scopes had been given a green light as a favorable juror by all concerned. However, Mike Hammer, Bryan’s private investigator, had just discovered that Scopes’ wife was a member of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Unfortunately, before finding this out, Bryan had used up all but one of his preemptory challenges and there were still four jury seats to fill. What courses of action are still open to Bryan? What are the dangers associated with them?