Opinion ID: 1275251
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Juror McCoy.

Text: (19) On the 43d day of trial, the trial judge interviewed Juror McCoy outside the presence of the other jurors. The judge indicated he had learned McCoy had appeared before a municipal court judge concerning a speeding ticket McCoy had received from the California Highway Patrol. A hearing on the ticket was scheduled for the following Monday, approximately the time the jury would be deliberating defendant's capital case. The municipal court judge had referred McCoy to the district attorney's office to see about having or soliciting the District Attorney's assistance in having a traffic ticket disposed of. McCoy explained that under his employer's rules, if the ticket were upheld he would lose his job. Previously he had received four other tickets, on two of which he claimed he had been railroaded. The trial judge asked McCoy whether the situation with the ticket would affect his ability to serve as a juror. McCoy acknowledged it would be a problem, because it means my job. The judge asked: Okay. Because the District Attorney's office has refused to intercede in your behalf here, does that mean, though, that you feel you would be influenced as a juror in this particular case, possibly, by that fact? McCoy replied, Well, I wonder where the justice is. You're talking about my life, you know, my income. Later, in the course of the voir dire, McCoy commented: So, I don't know. I mean, it would change my view on justice, on the system, yes. McCoy denied any resentment toward the prosecutor, or any particular person, but also said if his ticket were not dismissed he would set here and wonder where justice was at. McCoy said, I don't think it would have any effect on the decision that I would make here except I wouldn't have my mind on what I am doing here. Over defense opposition, the prosecutor moved to excuse McCoy from further jury service. After additional voir dire of McCoy and argument of counsel, the judge granted the prosecutor's motion. He reasoned: If it were not for the fact that the man's livelihood is bound up in all of this and if it were not for the fact that he feels so strongly that the system owes him this dismissal, notwithstanding his guilt of the citation, and that ultimately the District Attorney's Office is going to be at least in part responsible, if the worst happens, I agree with [the prosecutor], I really don't think that even though the man basically is honest, even though he has made the decision in his own mind he isn't going to let it bother him, I don't think that there is any way he can avoid it at least unconscientiously [ sic : unconsciously] affecting any judgment that he might render. Here, too, the record supports the trial court's ruling. Juror McCoy adhered to the belief justice required dismissal of his ticket, and admitted he would be unable to focus on the trial if he were left in doubt as to his employment status. Although he professed no resentment toward the prosecutor, he clearly felt some animosity toward the district attorney's office. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in excusing Juror McCoy under these circumstances.