¶ 53. (concurring). This case presents the jurisprudential question of how to reach a result that the court deems necessary without establishing inappropriate precedent. I join the concurring opinion of Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler because her opinion understands the problem and attempts to resolve it as narrowly as possible.
¶ 54. The lead opinion takes a different approach. It recognizes the circuit court's error in underestimating and misstating its authority to address the situation at hand. Lead op., ¶¶ 29-32. It lays out sound policy reasons why the circuit court should have exercised its authority in this case. Id., ¶¶ 4, 39-40. But then it *712concludes that the presence of the judge's mother on the juiy panel violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, id,., ¶¶ 5, 49, and it implies that the judge created structural error by failing to remove his mother from the jury panel, id., ¶¶ 41-47.
¶ 55. I cannot join an opinion that seeks to transform a questionable example of "objective bias" into a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment.
¶ 56. The presence of the judge's mother on the jury after the defendant asked the judge to remove her was not appropriate. The judge had the power to address the situation and avoid any problems in fact or appearance. In my view, he erred in not exercising that power.
¶ 57. For this court, there has to be a reasonable middle ground between a precedent-setting opinion that would approve, over the objection of the defendant, a judge's family member sitting on a criminal jury in a trial in which the judge presides, and a precedent-setting opinion that would categorize every future case of objective bias a constitutional violation requiring a new trial. Justice Ziegler's concurrence represents that middle ground.
¶ 58. For the reasons stated, I respectfully concur.