In State v. Hairston, 4th Dist. No. 06CA3047, 2007 Ohio 4159, the court was faced with multiple statements about the defendant by multiple jurors, yet the court determined that Hairston did not establish prejudice. In Hairston: several prospective jurors made remarks Those remarks allegedly included one potential juror's comments that he had heard "three black guys" committed the crimes; comments by another potential juror that the Hairstons must be "guilty" because the grand jury had indicted them; and statements by others that they had read newspaper accounts of the incident or are related or know the Melchers. One potential juror, when asked if he could put aside the newspaper account and base his decision only on facts adduced at trial, said that he would "try" to do so. Id. at P 12. In State v. Hairston, the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether an aggregate prison term of 134 years violated the Eighth Amendment and Section 9, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 2008 Ohio 2338, P1, 888 N.E.2d 1073. The Court answered the inquiry in the negative, concluding: for purposes of the Eighth Amendment and Section 9, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, proportionality review should focus on individual sentences rather than on the cumulative impact of multiple sentences imposed consecutively. Where none of the individual sentences imposed on an offender are grossly disproportionate to their respective offenses, an aggregate prison term resulting from consecutive imposition of those sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at P20. The Court further noted that "as a general rule, a sentence that falls within the terms of a valid statute cannot amount to a cruel and unusual punishment." Id. at P21.