Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Voir Dire About Television Show

Text: On the morning of April 14, 1988, during the jury selection process, the prosecutor informed the court that a television program on the death penalty hosted by Geraldo Rivera had been broadcast the previous night. The program included interviews of death row inmates, lawyers, experts, and psychiatrists. The prosecution requested the court to ask prospective jurors whether they had seen the program and, if so, whether it had in any way affected their views on the death penalty. After telling the prospective jurors that Geraldo Rivera had a program on death row inmates and the death penalty in California, the court asked how many of the prospective jurors had watched the program. Of the 14 prospective jurors who responded affirmatively, two later served on the jury and a third served as an alternate juror. The trial court admonished the prospective jurors that they should only obtain information about the criminal justice system, capital punishment and death penalty cases in this courtroom, not through the sensationalism of journalism. The court then asked the prospective jurors to raise a hand if the program had affected their views. No hands were raised, and the attorneys declined the court's invitation for further questioning. On April 18, 1988, jury selection resumed. Some of the prospective jurors present that day, including three who ultimately served on the jury, had not been in court on April 14 when the court questioned the prospective jurors about the television program in question, and on April 18 the court did not mention it. Defendant faults his trial counsel for not further questioning the panel of prospective jurors on April 14 about the television program, and for not questioning the panel at all on April 18. We find no incompetence of counsel. As to April 14, the trial court determined the identity of the prospective jurors who had seen the television program, ascertained that it would not affect their ability to make a decision in this case, and admonished them that all of their information about the death penalty and this case was to be acquired in the courtroom. On both April 14 and April 18, trial counsel may well have decided as a tactical matter that it would be unwise to draw attention to the television show, and that given the panel's earlier indication to the trial court that the program had not affected their views, no further questioning by counsel was called for. [4] With regard to counsel's decision not to question the jury panel on April 18, we apply the rule that `unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,'  for counsel's actions or omissions, we must reject a claim of ineffective representation. ( People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 367, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 716, 956 P.2d 1169.) In this case, defendant has not made the requisite showings. Defendant speculates, based on testimony at a posttrial evidentiary hearing regarding allegations of jury misconduct, that the jury may have discussed a matter apparently discussed on the television show. At the hearing, a juror who was present on April 14, 1988, testified: All I recall is the TV program about someone getting ... his death penalty turned over. The juror added, however, that she did not recall anyone saying anything about the possibility of a reversal of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and that if the subject was mentioned it was not discussed in depth. Defendant has not shown that the jury did discuss the television program. Nor has he shown that if such a discussion occurred, he suffered prejudice.