Unless I've misunderstood there's no suggestion she acted improperly during the trial - the information that suggests the foreman was essentially biased based o

Unless I've misunderstood there's no suggestion she acted improperly during the trial - the information that suggests the foreman was essentially biased based on his previous experiences only came up after the trial. At that point Koh is essentially in the same position as the rest of us - she has to judge the information now available to her which she's done and evidently decided it's not an issue. But she has nothing to be defensive about and I see no reason why another judge would need to look at it. She could declare a mistrial without it looking bad on her in any way at all.