Opinion ID: 1307282
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Seating Two Jurors

Text: Renewing objections raised during voir dire, Mu'Min moved to strike two jurors for cause. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motions to strike Alexandria Santiago, a prospective alternate, and Gregory Dailey. He argues that Ms. Santiago was not impartial because, he says, she had patronized Dale City Floors and referred during voir dire to Mrs. Napwasky by her first name. The transcript shows that Ms. Santiago had said that she knew Gladys, that their relationship had been friendly, but that we weren't friends. In reply to questions put by defense counsel, she affirmed that her contacts with the victim did not cause [her] to form an opinion, that she was not aware of any bias or prejudice, and that she was able to render a fair and impartial verdict and set aside [her] knowledge of Mrs. Napwasky. Mu'Min challenges the seating of Mr. Dailey on the ground that his deliberations would [have been] hampered and rushed by the financial hardship caused by jury service in a lengthy case. According to the record before us, Mr. Dailey made no plea of personal financial hardship. Asked what hardship his service on the jury would cause, he said, I'm doing telephone communications, and the company I work for is very small and it would jeopardize their business right now. This, he believed, could make him feel rushed and could somewhat hamper his ability as a juror to deliberate. Under Code § 8.01-341.2, a person's duty to serve on a jury may be deferred or limited if serving on a jury ... would cause such a person a particular occupational inconvenience. The privilege, one the statute makes available at the discretion of the trial court, is purely personal to the prospective juror and altogether unrelated to the inconvenience suffered by the person's employer. We find no merit in these assignments of error. Every question contemplated by Code § 8.01-358 and required by Rule 3A: 14 was addressed to these prospective jurors by court and counsel. Every response Santiago and Dailey made fully supports the trial judge's conclusion that both were qualified to sit on the jury, and we will uphold his rulings. [6]