Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discovery of information about prospective jurors

Text: (3) Before jury selection began, defendant moved to compel disclosure of any prosecution records and reports containing information about prospective jurors. The court denied the motion. Defendant claims the ruling was erroneous under People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 767 [175 Cal. Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446] (trial court has discretion to give defense access to jury records and reports). Defendant asserts that because there is no record of what information the prosecution possessed, we must presume it had a significant advantage over the defense during jury selection and that defendant was prejudiced thereby. However, defendant concedes Murtishaw itself rejected this approach. [I]n any individual case it is entirely speculative whether denial of access caused any significant harm to the defense. ( Ibid., italics omitted.) Thus, even assuming error occurred, it was necessarily harmless. (See also People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 180 [279 Cal. Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949]; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1225 [255 Cal. Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047].)