Opinion ID: 1736888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial due to the events surrounding the trial of alvin bridges, sr.

Text: ¶ 14. The gist of these two issues is that Smith was somehow prejudiced because two of his jurors had previously sat on a separate trial in which another, different defendant had escaped police custody and taken hostages, resulting in protests of the courthouse by that defendant's supporters. While the events surrounding the Bridges trial were certainly unusual and controversial, Smith fails to articulate any basis for why he would have been prejudiced by the conduct of a defendant in a completely different case. ¶ 15. On the subject of a trial court's latitude in choosing whether or not to strike jurors for cause, we have said: A trial court has wide discretion in determining whether to excuse prospective jurors, including those challenged for cause. Poe v. State, 739 So.2d 405, 409 (Miss. 1999). Because the trial judge, due to his presence during the voir dire process, is in a better position to evaluate the prospective juror's responses, the decision of whether or not to excuse the juror is left to the trial judge's discretion. Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497, 501 (Miss.1997). The judicial determination of whether a juror is fair and impartial will not be set aside unless such determination is clearly wrong. Id. (internal citations omitted). ¶ 16. In the case sub judice, the trial court took steps to ask each juror whether he or she had been exposed to any media coverage which might impair the juror's ability to render an impartial verdict. Furthermore, Smith cites no authority for the proposition that participation in one high profile case renders a juror hopelessly biased against different defendants in subsequent cases. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the two Bridges jurors for cause. ¶ 17. This Court has also said that a defendant who fails to seek a mistrial waives that issue on appeal. Williams v. State, 761 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss.2000). In the case sub judice, Smith not only did not seek a mistrial, he expressly refused one when the trial court offered him one. We conclude that this issue is waived and is without merit.