The defence would have to show Scotty purposefully lied and that the revelation improperly swayed the jury during deliberations.

David Weinstein, a defence attorney and former federal prosecutor, told The Telegraph if Scotty had answered the question correctly there would have been a further inquiry by the judge to see if he could still be a fair and impartial juror. “If he said that he could have still been an impartial juror, the defence could have used a peremptory challenge to remove him,” he said.

Both sides are permitted a number of “peremptory challenges”, to “strike” candidates without proving there is a reason to exclude them.

Mr Weinstein said there have been recent examples of a defendant failing to convince a judge to call for a mistrial over a juror bias, including in the cases of Mexican drug baron Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman case and Donald Trump ally and lobbyist, Roger Stone.

In 2015, however, a federal appeals court in New York did grant a new trial to a former Deutsche Bank broker in what was considered the biggest tax-fraud case in history on the grounds that a juror in the case lied about substantial matters in her background.