Opinion ID: 2546413
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Questioning on Pretrial Publicity

Text: Defendant next contends the trial court's inquiry into the effect of pretrial publicity on the impartiality of the jury pool was inadequate. At the threshold, we find defendant failed to preserve this claim for appeal by failing to object to the questionnaire or to the manner or completeness of the court's questioning on this issue. ( People v. Sanchez (1995) 12 Cal.4th 1, 61-62, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129; see also Turner v. Murray (1986) 476 U.S. 28, 37, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 [a defendant cannot complain of a judge's failure to question the venire on racial prejudice unless the defendant has specifically requested such an inquiry].) We also reject the claim on the merits. The jury questionnaire filled out by all prospective jurors asked them whether they had any knowledge of defendant's case (question 30) and, if so, what they had learned about it (question 32), where they learned it (question 32(a)), and whether the information made them favor the prosecution or the defense (question 32(b)); what newspapers they read frequently (question 33) and what portion of the paper they read (question 33(a)); whether they followed major crime stories and, if so, which ones (question 33(b)); what was the last book they read (question 33(c)); what radio and television news broadcasts they had seen or heard (question 34); whether they follow criminal cases in the broadcast media and, if so, which ones (question 34(a)); what was the most serious crime story they followed that year (question 35); whether they try to follow stories about the functioning of the criminal justice system (question 36); and whether they could follow an instruction not to read, view or discuss any news media coverage of this case (question 37). Jurors with knowledge of the case who were unable or unwilling to set their feelings aside were excused by the trial court. None of the 12 jurors who sat on defendant's jury expressed any hint in their questionnaires that they were in any way tainted by pretrial publicity about defendant's case. Defendant's claim that the trial court's inquiry into pretrial publicity was somehow inadequate is wholly baseless. (See People v. Sanchez, supra, at pp. 62-63, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129 [reliance on jury questionnaire].)