Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Remove Two Jurors for Cause

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to remove two prospective jurors for cause. Assuming, without deciding, there was error, defendant was not prejudiced in either case. One of the prospective jurors, G.B., did not sit on the jury because she was excused by the prosecution. ( People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 419, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) The other, L.W., was excused by the defense via a peremptory challenge, but because the defense did not exhaust its peremptory challenges, the claim of error is waived. ( People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 637, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 28 P.3d 175.) Defendant nonetheless argues he was prejudiced because the prospective jurors were not removed until toward the end of jury selection and were thus able to intermingle and influence the objectivity of those potential jurors who ultimately become members of [defendant's] panel. This is sheer speculation.