Opinion ID: 1356054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury View of the Crime Scenes

Text: During the trial, the jury was taken to view some of the scenes relevant to the case. While discussing procedures outside the jury's presence, the court asked who would identify the correct sites and tell the bus driver where to drive? One of the defense attorneys stated, Well, we have Jarrett (the investigating officer). The other defense attorney added, Whom everybody trusts implicitly. Later, defense counsel explained to the jury that [t]he plan was that I think Officer Jarrett was going to go in a separate vehicle [with the jury], and all of us were going to meet ... and then Officer Jarrett's vehicle will lead us through. The court offered to allow one or both of the defense attorneys to accompany Jarrett. Defense counsel declined, stating, We implicitly trust Officer Jarrett. Thereafter, Sergeant Jarrett accompanied the jury in the bus ride to the scenes. Defendant argues the court erred in letting Sergeant Jarrett accompany the jury to the scenes. He speculates that Jarrett might have said something prejudicial to the jury on the bus. However, the defense did not object to the procedure; indeed, it suggested it. Because defendant failed to object to any aspect of the jury view, he cannot raise further challenge on appeal. ( People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 323, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) Defendant contends counsel acted incompetently. However, the record shows quite clearly that both defense attorneys trusted Jarrett. We have no basis on which to conclude that this trust was misplaced. The record does not suggest that Jarrett was a zealous partisan. His testimony was, on the whole, an objective account of the investigation. In argument to the jury, the defense cited his testimony as helpful to the defense. Moreover, we have no basis on which to speculate that Jarrett said anything to the jury harmful to the defense to which he did not testify in court.