Opinion ID: 654621
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voir Dire as to Racial Prejudice

Text: 4 The appellant argues that remarks referencing race by prospective jurors should have caused the trial court to voir dire the remaining panel as to racial prejudice. 1 It is noted that we are not here dealing with an interracial crime and there were present no special circumstances suggesting that race was a factor. Furthermore neither party requested the Court to inquire concerning possible racial prejudice. 5 Rule 24(a) gives the court very broad discretion to conduct the voir dire examination of prospective jurors. The rule states that the court itself [may] conduct the examination ... [and in that] event ... shall permit the defendant or the defendant's attorney ... to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper. F.R.Cr.P. 24(a). The appellant's failure to request inquiries into the matter or to object to the voir dire questioning or procedure waives that right on appeal. This principle, that a party must make known to the trial court what he objects to and the reasons for the objections, is applied most often to rulings on evidence and claims of improper argument by the prosecutor, but it applies as well to many other kinds of rulings by the trial court. See Charles A. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure Vol. 3A, Sec. 842 (2d ed. 1982). See also F.R.Cr.P. 51. 6 The Supreme Court, addressing questions to the prospective jury concerning racial prejudice, has stated: In our judgment, it is usually best to allow the defendant to resolve ... whether or not he would prefer to have the inquiry into racial or ethnic prejudice pursued. Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 191, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 1636, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981). The Court further stated that reversible error would occur only where the trial judge failed to honor the request for the racial inquiry and when the circumstances of the case indicated a reasonable possibility that racial prejudice might have influenced the jury. Id. The appellant established neither prong of the required test.