Following a jury trial, Ronnie C. Clayton was convicted of two counts of firearms violations and sentenced to sixty-three months in prison. Clayton filed a motion for a new trial after he learned that his brother-in-law's niece was married to the son of Marvin Moss, the jury foreman at Clayton's trial.1 The district court denied the motion. Clayton appeals, claiming that the connection between himself and Moss was sufficiently close to justify a new trial. We find no merit to Clayton's contentions; consequently, we affirm the district court's denial of the motion for a new trial.

Clayton filed his motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Although he does not articulate his concern about his distant connection to Moss, presumably Clayton's position is that Moss is biased against him. The remedy for alleged jury partiality is a hearing to give the defendant an opportunity to prove actual bias. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 (1982). The district court held a hearing in this case and it was established that Clayton's sister was married to a man whose niece was married to Moss's son. The district court found the connection between Moss and Clayton to be too tenuous to justify a new trial. A trial court's grant or denial of a motion for a new trial will stand absent a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Widgery, 674 F.2d 710, 713 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 894 (1982).

Under state law, relationship by either blood or marriage may disqualify a juror. See Gray v. Commonwealth, 311 S.E.2d 409 (Va. 1984) (relatives of murder victim disqualified from serving on jury of accused murderer); State v. Allred, 169 S.E.2d 833 (N.C. 1969) (relative of witness disqualified from jury).

The fact that a juror is related to a defendant may form a valid basis for challenging that juror for cause.2 Absent a showing of actual bias, however, such a relationship does not justify a new trial. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984).

Clayton failed to present any evidence that Moss was biased against him. In fact, Moss stated that he did not even realize there was any connection between himself and Clayton until after the trial. Thus, the connection could not have influenced his decision in determining Clayton's guilt and does not justify a new trial.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the connection between Clayton and Moss was too tenuous to justify a new trial. Accordingly, the district court's order denying Clayton's motion for a new trial is affirmed. Clayton's attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel is granted. Clayton's motion for appointment of new counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.