Opinion ID: 2508855
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inadequate Examination of Juror

Text: Defendant contends the trial court conducted an inadequate examination of Juror No. 3 in the first and second interviews. In particular, he claims the court failed to inquire into the possibility that the juror's desire to see photographs of the victims while alive reflected such sympathy for the victims as to constitute, or cause, a bias against defendant. As with the previous claim, however, defendant has waived this claim by his failure to seek a more extensive or broader inquiry of the juror at the time, or in any other way to object to the trial court's course of action. The trial court did not indicate any unwillingness to ask further questions of Juror No. 3; nor did the court preclude counsel from asking such questions; indeed, at the end of the first interview, the court invited questions from counsel, but defense counsel declined. Having failed to suggest any additional examination was required, thereby preventing the trial court from considering any arguments for conducting further examination, defendant is not privileged to make the argument now for the first time on appeal. ( People v. McIntyre, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 906, 176 Cal.Rptr. 3.) On the merits, we find no abuse of discretion ( People v. Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 343, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846) in the trial court's failure to inquire further into possible bias. Neither interview gave the court reason not to accept as true Juror No. 3's explanation that he wanted the pictures for, in the court's word, completion, or to doubt the juror's assurances that his ability to serve as a juror would not be affected by whether the court granted his request and that he could put the matter out of his mind and be a fair juror. One may assume the juror felt considerable sympathy for the victims  young women, murdered in an apparently unprovoked attack, leaving behind loving friends and family  but such sympathy does not equal or imply a disqualifying bias against the defense, especially where the defendant claims to be innocent of the crime. The court, which was able to observe the juror's tone and demeanor, conducted an inquiry adequate to determine that Juror No. 3's natural sympathy for the victims had not developed into an emotional involvement so intense and gripping as to disable him from serving impartially.